Clause 1.—(MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY.)

HC Deb 29 June 1967 vol 749 cc895-1102

Which Amendment was: In page 1, line 10, at the end, to insert the words 'a medically unacceptable'.

Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Richard Sharpies (Sutton and Cheam)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand from what was said this afternoon during business questions that it is the intention to close a large part of the accommodation available for the public to watch our proceedings. The House should be aware that when I looked outside just now I saw more than 100 people waiting to get in to watch the debates. While I realise that it is not possible for you at this late stage to take any action about this, the House should realise the difficulties which we are being put into by this business being taken at this hour.

Mr. Speaker

I hope that no one is waiting merely to watch the debates. I hope that everyone would rather want to hear them. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman is not a point of order that I can deal with at the moment.

We were on Amendment No. 5, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and were discussing with it Amendment No. 6, also in the name of the hon. Gentleman, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'risk to the life or of' and insert: 'a probability of death or severe permanent'. and Amendment No. 7, in the name of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), In page 1, line 11, after 'of', insert 'permanent'. If I remember rightly, the hon. Member for Nottingham, West was addressing the House.

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)

When the debate was adjourned, I was proposing the merits of Amendment No. 6.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Will those hon. Members not staying for the debate leave the Chamber quietly? We have a lot of work to do during the night.

Mr. English

I was comparing the decision for the termination of a pregnancy—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I hope that the House is going to conduct itself reasonably.

Mr. English

I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if the Leader of the House who is responsible for our being here now wishes to break the rules of order I have no objection.

When the debate was adjourned, I was comparing the decision which would have to be taken as to whether or not to terminate a pregnancy with the decision which, to the regret of some of my colleagues, was taken by President Truman to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Mr. Truman said later that he did not regret his decision because, although it meant killing people, he believed that he was saving the lives of more people by it.

At the moment, the Bill permits an abortion, according to Clause 1, if … the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. … "Risk" without qualification, "risk" with no preceding adjective, "risk" of any sort, of any type, at any time. There is no circumstance of which I am aware in which a pregnancy does not involve risk. There is no degree of risk specified. I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) will suggest what he may mean by the present phrasing of the Bill.

The purport of the Amendment standing in my name is to say that "risk" means a risk of 50 per cent. I do not deny that this may not be wholly acceptable not only to supporters of the Bill but to opponents of the Bill. I realise that it is not acceptable to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, and it probably is not wholly acceptable to passionate opponents of the Bill such as my Roman Catholic friends on both sides of the House. However, the fact remains that if one is to import the question of risk it must be imported on a rational basis. The subject is an emotional one. It arouses passionate emotions from both those in favour and against it. I am trying to import into it a little rationality. I am trying to import into it the suggestion that one may abort a child if the risk to the mother is more than 50 per cent. or if the risk to the child being born deformed is more than 50 per cent. and so on; not just any risk.

The Bill as now worded would permit abortion on almost any grounds for the simple reason that there is always present in any pregnancy risk of injury to the mother or of a child being born deformed.

It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles that one cannot limit the terms of this Bill. He has suggested that if one limits the terms of the Bill one will still have the back street abortionist and one will still encourage abortions on other grounds. He has stated that if the Bill is not as wide as possible there will still be some degree of abortion.

There are two arguments against that. The first is that the Bill, as it exists, is not as wide as possible. Therefore, on that argument, there will still be some abortions which are not legal within the terms of the Bill. That would be sufficient in itself to nullify that argument. But in particular, and what is of more concern to me, that argument is immoral. If it is argued that we should alter the law of the land solely on the ground that it is disobeyed, it seems to me that that argument can stretch out illimitably over most of the legislation that we possess. When the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles made this argument for the first time in his speech on Second Reading, I felt that it was one of the most immoral arguments that I had heard in favour of a piece of legislation. I mean this quite sincerely, although with all respect to him personally. If one is to argue that we must change the law of the land because people disobey it, then there is little in the law of the land that ought not to be changed.

This was the argument that was put. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles shakes his head, but if he looks at his own speech on Second Reading he will find that he made this precise point, and he has made it subsequently. He has said that if this Bill is limited too much the illegal back street abortionist will still exist. The hon. Member has used the argument that we must not limit the Bill or we will encourage illegal abortions.

10.45 p.m.

What is said in the Bill as drafted is that a pregnancy can be terminated on the ground of a "risk" an unspecified risk. I can imagine that different doctors will interpret this word in different ways. Some doctors will say that "risk" means a substantial risk. They will import into the provision an adjective which is not there. Another doctor may take a different view, possibly because he thinks that it may be to his own benefit. I am not so naïve as to think that there are no doctors who will perform operations because of the gain that they will obtain from so doing. Another doctor may say "There is always a risk. I will perform an abortion." One thing is certain, and this will be shown by a study of other operations of a totally different nature, that it is highly unlikely that every single doctor in the United Kingdom will take the same view of what the Bill means.

It seems to me that in the present terms of the Bill we are saying as a House of Commons that we are handing over not to the medical profession as a whole but to every individual doctor in the country the right to determine what the risk is. We are saying that we as a House of Commons cannot determine it. We are handing over this question entirely to the medical profession. We are not handing over to the medical profession what they have every right and qualification to determine. We are not handing over to the medical profession the question of what degree of injury or risk exists to the life of the woman. I am certain that the average medical practitioner is fully qualified to determine that. But we are not saying that we are handing over to the medical profession the right to determine what the risk is. We are saying that, having determined what the risk is, then in the event of there being any risk at all, as the Bill is worded, the doctor should abort the child.

I say that the decision of the degree of risk that justifies an abortion is one from which we as a House cannot absolve ourselves. If we are to pass a Bill legalising abortion to any degree, we have a responsibility to determine where the line is to be drawn beyond which an abortion is to be considered illegal. We cannot hand over that responsibility to the medical profession, to every single doctor in the United Kingdom. It is our job, from which we cannot absolve ourselves, to decide where the line should be drawn.

The purport of my Amendment is to say that the line is to be drawn not at a minor risk but at a risk which is greater than the risk of the alternative, to say that a child shall not be aborted if that child may be born deformed—that is true of any birth—and that there shall not be an abortion on the ground that the mother may be injured, but that there shall be an abortion if it is more likely that the child will be born deformed than not or more likely that the mother will be injured than not. One should not say to a doctor, "You will abort on the ground that there is a risk"—that is true of every pregnancy—but one should say "You will abort if there is a definite or probable risk."

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

The argument of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has been most difficult to follow. His mistake in putting forward the logic of his argument was not to read the Clause carefully. Everything that the hon. Member has said might have been adduced with force had the Bill simply said: the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk", but that is not what the Bill says. It lays down that it is risk to the life or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman". The risk is already qualified.

The hon. Member said that any pregnancy involves risk. Of course it does. If the Bill stopped at that, the hon. Member's arguments would be sound. It is not true, as the hon. Member said, that the risk is unspecified. The reference to risk is clearly followed with careful specification of the sort of risks which we consider to be within the law for the medical practitioner to consider.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro)

Surely, the hon. Member is not being logical. He says that the risk is limited to the risk to life, but it is also risk of injury to the physical or mental health". It might mean anything.

Mr. Steel

I said that. I read the definition in full.

Even if one accepted the point of view put forward by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West, during the whole of the last year, when we have had long discussions with many branches of the medical profession and the legal profession, and different views within both professions, no point of view has been put forward to us that that risk should be qualified by other adjectives before it, which is the substance of the Amendments. On the contrary, strong representations were made to us at the outset that the work "risk" should not be so qualified.

The hon. Member said—I noted his words—that we were not leaving to the medical profession what the profession has every right and qualification to determine. On the contrary, we are leaving to the medical profession what members of that profession consider and have represented to us that they, and they alone, have every right and qualification to determine and that it is not for Parliament to tie their hands.

The medical profession believes strongly that each case must be assessed on its merits and that Parliament must certainly lay down the conditions under which an operation should be carried out but that it is not for laymen to tie the hands of the medical profession with legal mumbo-jumbo when, at the end of the day, members of that profession have to take the decision.

Mr. James Dance (Bromsgrove)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way—

Mr. Steel

I was not giving way. I had completed my speech.

Mr. Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)

This debate was opened some time ago, on Friday, 2nd June, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) in a speech of compelling force. I am delighted to support his Amendment No. 5.

It is true that the Amendment merely spells out in words what should be implicit in any proper expression of opinion by a doctor who is called in to advise on a termination. Unfortunately, those of us who have laboured through the long days of the Committee stage and who, I have no doubt, will labour through the long hours of the night—are concerned not solely with what doctors think or how doctors act, but with a Bill most of the sponsors of which have shown scant regard for the considered views of the leaders of the medical profession. I want to say that at the outset.

It is possible that my right hon. and learned Friend—I have not consulted him about it—would not have put down the Amendment if the promoters of the Bill had been prepared to accept the advice of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists about the necessity for one of the two registered medical practitioners to have specialist qualifications or even the more limited advice of the Law Society and the British Academy of Forensic Sciences that the Minister of Health should set up panels of suitable doctors after consultation with the profession.

But such advice was rejected and the Minister ran away from the Government's stand in the debate on the noble Lord Silkin's second Bill in another place and the Parliamentary Secretary's stand in Committee on this Bill, so my right hon. and learned Friend had little choice. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman does not fall into the trap of contesting that statement, since it would have been an embarrassment to him. Lord Stonham clearly stated the Government's position in another place, and the Parliamentary Secretary, whom we are glad to see here, did the same in Committee. Something happened to the Minister in the interval, and he abdicated his responsibility. Therefore, if my right hon. and learned Friend had not tabled this Amendment, I would have tabled a similar one.

An Amendment of this kind might be less necesary if we could be sure that the vague and ill-chosen references to "wellbeing" we shall be debating later would be removed, but we cannot. The promoters have been deaf to reason and have failed to realise that, if the Bill is to work, it must command the respect and support of those who have to advise on and carry out terminations. In consequence, the promoters have piled difficulty on difficulty and have made what could have been a useful and humane Measure, which the majority of us would have supported, the object of a great deal of doubt and misgiving—

Mr. Dance

My hon. Friend says that the medical profession should be consulted. Since the Leader of the House is here, perhaps he could be asked to tell us why he has given time for the debate tonight when the annual meeting of that profession is fixed for next week in Bristol—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. I am afraid that that matter is outside the scope of the Amendment.

Mr. Braine

The effect of the Bill's handling on doctors is shown by a letter I received a few days ago from two eminent Yorkshire consultants, Mr. G. A. Craig, consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist for the Bradford A group of hospitals, and Mr. John Mander, consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist at York, which reads: The following statement has been submitted to the 29 Consultant Gynaecologists employed by the Leeds Regional Hospital Board (as per attached list). There follows a list of distinguished medical men and women.

The statement was as follows: The Termination of Pregnancy Bill will shortly have its third reading. We, gynaecologists in the Leeds Region, wish to state that should the Bill become law:

1. (1). Our present practice of terminating a pregnancy where a well established medical indication exists will be unchanged, and
2. (2). We do not expect to terminate more pregnancies than before.

Although it may be desirable to clarify the existing law the present Bill goes far beyond this. In our opinion it will not reduce the number of abortions carried out by the unqualified. The letter ended: Twenty-six have signed the statement. Two have assented verbally. The signatures can be inspected at 1, Mornington villas, Manningham Lane, Bradford, 8. 11.0 p.m.

That letter expresses an attitude which is now unhappily common throughout the country. Yet the sad thing is that both the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the vast majority of the medical profession want reform and amendment of the law about abortion. My charge against those who are responsible for the handling of the Bill and against the Minister of Health because of his inaction, is that they have alienated the greater part of the medical profession.

Against this background, my right hon. and learned Friend is right to insist that the Bill makes clear beyond peradventure that the decision of the two registered medical practitioners in assessing the degree of risk to life or injury to health is a medical decision. He is right to insist that we do not put upon doctors the burden of making social value judgments which they are not equipped to make. Of necessity, in a matter of this kind we are obliged to leave a great deal to the judgment of doctors. They belong to a noble profession. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) was right; a doctor approaches each case and assesses it on its merits, taking account of all environmental circumstances. That is why a simple Bill providing that the decision is taken by at least one doctor who has had long and special experience of this kind of work would have given a great deal more assurance to the medical profession and a great deal more assurance to the nation than the complex and muddled Measure before us.

Let us consider why it is essential to spell out the need for the insertion of the words "a medically unacceptable risk". At the moment the Bill provides that any two doctors, with the minimum period of registration, with the minimum experience, can enter the abortion industry. Provided that they can satisfy the Minister in regard to the premises from which they operate—he has been absolutely silent on the matters that we could expect to find in the regulations he will have to make—and provided that they can satisfy a jury that they operated in good faith believing that there was some risk to health, the degree of which is not specified in the Bill, they would have a complete defence.

I will not anticipate arguments which I shall address to the House later, but it will emerge in the course of debate during the night that this is not a Bill which will permit a large increase in therapeutic abortion in the National Health Service hospitals. The Minister knows that well. There are about 10,000 gynaecological beds in the country and there are 60,000 women on the gynaecological waiting list, awaiting appointments. The chances of the National Health Service providing massive facilities for abortions once the Bill becomes law are remote. The Minister knows that. The Bill is therefore a licence to permit abortion on a very much larger scale in the private sector. Thanks to the abdication of responsibility by the Minister and the blindness of the sponsors, the Bill will do little to ensure any change in the number of therapeutic abortions carried out in the National Health Service, but it will give a great deal of encouragement to the professional abortionists in the private sector.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is getting wide of the Amendment, which is concerned with a medically unacceptable risk.

Mr. Braine

Were the Bill based on the kind of reform that the medical profession want, it would not have been necessary to insert those words. It is precisely because of the situation which I have been describing that it is necessary to insert the words which my right hon. and learned Friend has proposed.

Mr. David Steel

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will not make a habit of interrupting speeches through the night. Will he accept from me that the medical profession, as represented by the B.M.A., does not demand the insertion of these words?

Mr. Braine

The profession has asked for many things—

Mr. Steel

Not these words.

Mr. Braine

We will be coming to that later. The profession has been repeatedly snubbed, and if the hon. Gentleman wants me to spell out the facts in detail, I will do so later.

I have a reservation about one aspect of the Amendment, for it introduces an unfortunate implication. Strictly speaking, the Bill may be about what it is lawful for doctors to do, but outside this House it is thought by the general public to be concerned with the right of a woman faced with perhaps the most agonising decision of her life, to decide for herself whether she will terminate the child she is carrying. It is for the woman, as well as the doctor, to consider whether the risk is acceptable or unacceptable.

The words in the Amendment—I must be frank about this; this is the spirit in which we must conduct these discussions—carry the impression to a layman like myself that the doctors decide on the question of what is unacceptable. They do but the words leave out of account the fact that, in the last analysis, after having had advice from the doctors, it is the woman herself who decides whether the risk is unacceptable. The task of the doctors is to advise as to whether a termination is wise from a medical point of view—taking into account, of course, such social indications as may affect her health, physical and mental. However, subject to that reservation, the Amendment is necessary because of the way in which the sponsors of the Bill have failed to match up to the other requirements which the medical profession think are necessary.

I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), who has shown some readiness in our discussions to accept Amendments, will consider this proposal. The hon. Gentleman has sometimes been embarrassed by his supporters, and when talking about the sponsors of the Measure I have not always been talking about him. He should accept this Amendment, if for no other reason than because either the Bill carries with it the support of the leaders of the medical profession, or it will become a farce, a snare and a delusion.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson)

I intervene briefly, not to reply to the Second Reading speech of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine)—in the course of which he did not make clear to the House his attitude to the Amendment—but to deal with one point he made in his closing remarks.

The Hon. Gentleman suggested that the Bill, as drafted, goes counter to the views of the medical profession. I draw the attention of the House to a letter in The Times of 29th May last, signed by the President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Chairman of the British Medical Association's Council and other distinguished doctors, setting out the terms of the Bill which they would support and, relative to this series of Amendments, they have no qualifications about the matter.

Mr. Martin Maddan (Hove)

On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman to read a newspaper in the Chamber?[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman concerned knows that it is not in order to read a newspaper in the Chamber unless it is associated with a matter which he proposes to raise.

Mr. L. M. Lever (Manchester, Ardwick)

I assure you that it is relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Robinson

The only point I wish to make on the question of risk is that the doctors who signed that letter wish to see no qualification of the word "risk". It is, therefore, incorrect for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Bill as drafted runs counter in this particular to the views of the medical profession.

Mr. Braine

I know that the Minister would not wittingly mislead the House, but he has just made a statement which is not correct—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order.

Mr. Braine

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] May I have your protection, first, in order to put my point of order, and, secondly, to have your advice. The Minister has said that a statement I made is incorrect, and has quoted in aid a letter, which he did not read, which appeared in The Times on 29th May. He has then refused to give way to me in order that I might point out that he is totally mistaken; in short, that the letter asks for certain—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am trying to give the hon. Member some guidance, and to help the House. The right hon. Gentleman was not giving way, because he had ended his remarks. The correct practice is for the hon. Gentleman to ask the Minister before he sits down. As the hon. Gentleman was in some doubt about what was happening, I will assume that he is now making his intervention before the right hon. Gentleman sat down.

Mr. Braine

Then may I address my remarks to the Minister before he sits down, Mr. Deputy Speaker? He must be aware that Sir John Peel and his co-signatories said that the Bill would be acceptable to them only if two requirements were met. One was that the termination of pregnancy should be carried out by or be under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner holding an appointment as a consultant under the National Health Service or by a registered medical practitioner approved for this purpose by the Minister. The Minister is aware that not only has the House rejected that suggestion, on his advice, but that he has completely misled the House, and I hope that he will withdraw what he said.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Mr. St. John-Stevas.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas (Chelmsford)

Some curious things are happening this evening. By a curious irony, which the Leader of the House has achieved, we are having this debate on abortion on the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul. We have, I think, St. Peter on our side, and we may have St. Paul as well. Another curious thing is that the sponsor of the Bill has replied to my Amendment before I have even spoken on it. Thirdly, we have had this extraordinary point raised by the Minister of Health which has been so adequately dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine)—which, if he had not dealt with it, I certainly should have done—pointing out that very relevant point of the letter, and the views of the doctors which were scouted so cavalierly by the Minister.

I leave that point in order to turn to the purpose of the three Amendments we are not considering. The purpose is really to tighten up and restrict the scope of the Bill. The Amendments are intended to redress the balance which in the Bill as it is at present drafted, has tilted too far towards the rights of the mother and away from the rights of the child. Both these rights must be considered, but the Amendments are intended to bring back into the picture the other person vitally concerned, the unborn child.

11.15 p.m.

It is true that we are considering this in the context of a Bill to which the sponsor has put down an Amendment to delete "well-being". It would improve the Bill greatly if that were done. With the deletion of the word "well-being", these Amendments do not become as vital in one sense as they were when they were originally tabled. However, there are two points which should be made. First, the Amendment in the name of the sponsor of the Bill may not be passed by the House. Second, the Amendments to delete "well-being" vary greatly in scope, and there will still be the part in the Bill which says that the total environment of the woman has to be considered. So that, even if the word "well-being" is deleted, these Amendments will still retain a considerable relevance, and the Amendment tabled by the sponsor of the Bill puts in other words which enable the health of any existing children of the family to be considered as an alternative and separate ground for abortion.

The Amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) specifies that the risk to the life or health of the mother which justifies abortion must be a medically unacceptable risk, and the virtue of the Amendment is that it restricts the judgment which doctors have to take to one which they are competent to take, on strictly medical grounds.

In applying that test, the discretion of the individual doctor must come in, and that is perfectly right. All along, we must consider the position of the medical profession, because it is that profession which has to operate the Measure. What a medically unacceptable risk is, in practice, must be worked out by the experience of the medical profession itself.

The virtue of putting those words into the Bill is that it is elastic. It is capable of expansion with the advance of medical knowledge and, at the same time, it is capable of contraction, if that is necessary. To give an example of the way in which medical practice changes in regard to risk, in the past, there was no doubt amongst the majority of doctors that a schizophrenic illness occurring after pregnancy carried a prognosis which was not at all good. It was generally accepted that such an illness was made much worse by the pregnancy. But medical practice on that is changing. Dr. Meyer Sim, the consultant psychiatrist to the United Birmingham Hospital, told the Medical Advisers' Conference of that hospital in May of last year: In 1951 I was called to see a patient of my colleague. She was a schizophrenic lady who had been in a mental hospital for 18 months. Her husband felt she was not getting better, and had taken her home on his own responsibility. She became pregnant, and I was asked to decide whether to terminate the pregnancy or not. 'This, of course', I wrote in her case notes, 'is a classic illustration, and one of the few that come our way.' I said that she should be terminated. However, this patient showed some volition and said that she did not want to have her baby taken away. We were surprised. We even thought it was evidence of her mental illness. The only way to terminate her to protect her mental health would have been to certify her and do it against her will—a very unpleasant thing to think of, far less to do. So I said, 'Well, she is pretty had. She cannot be made much worse by her pregnancy. Let us take the lines of least resistance and let her go on.' She went to term, had the baby, and got better. We watched her to see if she would relapse, but she continued well. That is an interesting and relevant example, because it shows that what at one time may be an acceptable degree of risk, at another time will become acceptable.

If we leave the word "risk" alone in the Bill, it will not be capable of that flexibile interpretation that this Amendment would give it. As a result of his experience in this case, Dr. Sim compiled a dossier of facts about abortion cases, the purpose being to assess exactly what the risks to the mother's life or health in fact of her going to term are. This research has both importance and relevance to our discussion in assessing the degree of risk to the life or health of the mother which justifies an abortion.

The researches of Dr. Sim occupied 12 years. The questions he asked were these: Is it possible to predict whether a woman will develop serious mental illness if in fact her pregnancy does go to term? What happens to the illness when it is treated; is it easily recoverable or not? The second question is just as important as the first. Clearly, there is no case for abortion if the illness can be treated in a medically satisfactory way. These are medical questions and only a doctor can answer them. Therefore, in advancing my argument on this point I have to rely on the testimony of doctors.

In his paper, Dr. Sim investigated the question of puerperal psychosis. He collected 213 personal cases. This may not appear to be a very large sample, but it is a very large sample to be treated by one person. The conclusion he reached was that puerperal psychosis was virtually not predictable. He said: We had some most unusual cases. I had a patient who had had five children and one was not wanted. She was then 43. As I had looked after her in her first breakdown, I thought that I would rather treat her psychosis which I knew I could get her over rather than have a post-operative psychosis which is difficult. She went to term and had her baby and had no psychosis. She left Birmingham several years ago but she still writes to me. Most people would say that she must have another psychosis, but there is no predictability. If one extends the argument further, the incidence of severe psychosis is approximately one in every 800 or 1,000 live births. This means that a general practitioner who delivers, say, 25 babies a year—which is a reasonable average—would have to practise for 40 years to see one serious case of psychosis in these circumstances. It is clear that what to a layman may seem an unacceptable risk may very well be an acceptable risk if it is considered from the medical point of view. If it is said that if there is a past history of such psychosis the risk is increased, I freely admit that that is so, but it is increased by only 20 per cent. to 30 per cent., and that, taking the incidence of the risk as I outlined earlier, is not a very great risk.

Apart from questions of psychosis, there is the further and perhaps most important sub-division under the issue of mental indications for an abortion, the risk of suicide. Again the lay point of view would very often be that the risk of this taking place is so great that there must be a termination. But, looked at from the medical point of view, a principle which the Amendment seeks to write into the Bill, there may be a completely different answer. I again quote from the researches of Dr. Sim: In the City of Birmingham with a population of a million and a quarter over a six-year period 120 women of child bearing age committed suicide. Not one was pregnant. Post mortem examinations have been carried out, so there was no question of a pregnancy or even abortion being missed. I followed this up with a second six-year inquiry and this time one woman who was pregnant had committed suicide. She was a married woman with two or three children, attending a psychiatric clinic at the time. She needed psychiatric treatment. So in a 12-year period in Birmingham we have one suicide amongst pregnant women and here abortion would not have influenced the outcome. Dr. Sim goes on to go into details, with which I will not burden the House.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This is very important, because these are the details of research, which give some substance to what is otherwise an extraordinarily vague conception.

It can be seen that, from the point of medical acceptability, the risk of suicide is a small risk indeed. That is all I want to say on that Amendment.

Amendment No. 6 goes much further. If it were accepted, the Bill would provide that an abortion could be carried out if the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a probability of death or severe permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman". That would be substituted for the risk at present postulated.

Amendment No. 6 would tighten the Bill up in two ways, both of which are desirable. Instead of risk to life, there would be the probability of death. That wording is preferable, because it implicitly recognises what I believe abortion can at best be said to be, which is a necessary evil. It recognises that in abortion cases the doctor—indeed, the mother—is faced with an agonising choice. There is not one life at stake. So much of the discussion on the Bill has proceeded as though it were only the mother who was concerned. There are two people concerned. There is the mother, and there is the unborn child. The whole question of abortion should arise only when there is a clash between those two interests. Which should the doctor save? Is the condition of the mother's health such that the only way her health can be safeguarded is by an abortion?

I suppose that, if one were a completely strict moralist and one accepted two principles—first, that the end never justifies the means; and, secondly, that all innocent human life is sacred—there would be no choice for a doctor in that position but to let them both die. If the life of the child was threatening that of the mother, from the strictly moral point of view there would be no case for taking away the life of the child, if one accepted that innocent human life was totally sacred.

I think that that is a consideration which belongs to textbooks of moral theology rather than to life as it actually is. I would find that sort of conclusion repugnant to both common sense and ordinary humanity. Therefore, the law, as opposed to theoretical morality, in a variety of branches, and this one in particular, must recognise the doctrine of necessity, where an act which would otherwise be considered immoral or illegal has to be considered moral or legal because of the particularly compelling circumstances which have arisen. That is the point which Amendment No. 6 enshrines.

11.30 p.m.

Indeed, the present law recognises that if an abortion is essential to save the life of the mother it is legal. This Amendment is not a mere statement, or a wish, or a fantasy, but requires the establishment of probability. This surely is a sensible addition, because it imports into this branch of the law, instead of the subjective standard of good faith, the objective standard of reasonableness. It requires some evidence to be produced that death would probably result, or that there would be severe injury to the health of the mother. Some evidence of this must be produced before the abortion can be carried out.

It goes on to add the further ground that the injury must be severe and permanent. I confess some doubt about the first adjective, "severe". What does it mean? "Severe" is a highly subjective word, and it will mean different things to different people. On the other hand, I believe that the word "permanent" is reasonably capable of definition, and this is why I have confined my Amendment to the word "permanent", without any adjective. It is a term which is capable of objective verification.

The purpose of my Amendment is to set limits within which the doctor has to take his decision. It is intended to exclude such considerations as whether or not it is convenient for the mother to have an abortion, or for the other children to have an extra brother or sister. It is to relieve the doctor of taking a decision about tie burden on the family, which he is not qualified to take, and to confine him to the decision whether, on a balance of probabilities, there is a real risk of permanent handicap to the mother.

I have been considering this problem from the point of view of the risk to the life or health of the mother by not having an abortion, but there is a further point which must be borne in mind here, namely, that there are risks to the mother in having the abortion. The doctor has to consider this as well, and whatever may have been said by the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) about the ease of having abortions, in many cases it is neither a simple nor an easy operation, and therefore the conscientious doctor must be in a position to balance the risk from the operation against the risk which the woman will incur from the pregnancy being terminated.

This is a matter for skilled medical judgment. It is an axiom in medicine not to embark on a measure to help someone if it may produce the very thing one is trying to avert, or make things worse. There must be this balancing of risks. The doctor must be enabled to make that balance. This is why I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) will give the most full and serious consideration both to my Amendment and to the others. I hope that he will be able to accept one or more of them because they are put forward in a serious attempt to improve the Bill.

Mr. W. F. Deedes (Ashford)

I would like to say a few words in support of Amendment No. 5, in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson). I think I am right in saying that this Amendment has not received either the approval, or the disapproval, of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) or the Minister of Health. Although both have addressed themselves to this series of Amendments, we are still in the dark about whether they view them with approval or otherwise.

I support Amendment No. 5 because I have felt all along that the Bill ought to be, if not acceptable, at least workable by members of the medical profession, and I think that in that respect the Amendment makes a considerable contribution. It seems to me that it has two marked virtues: one is that leaves proper scope for the medical profession; the other is that it ensures that the doctor is not required to reach decisions on grounds outside his own sphere. Of those two considerations, I regard the second as the most important, but, as to the first, in all our proceedings on the Bill here and elsewhere, I have felt acutely conscious that we shall make asses of ourselves if we try to tell doctors how to conduct their business in too great detail. Doctors and surgeons do not go about their business with the small print of the Measures which we pass here in their mind's eye. The work is not done in that way, and it would become impossible if one attempted so to do it. What they will accept, and what I think we have a right—perhaps a duty—to offer is a broad standard against which judgment should be made. Such a standard is provided by Amendment No. 5.

Moreover, it provides a medical—and to some of us this is important—rather than a social standard. It has the further effect of imposing a sensible and workable limit on what may be done; and by that, I know, some hon. Members on both sides set great store. Many of my hon. Friends will not agree with this, but I have always felt that it would be better to have abortion by consent than a Bill which, in reality, was a sham. A Bill, however elaborately worded, which made it, in effect, virtually impossible to bring a successful prosecution for an illegal abortion would, in reality, be a sham, and it would very quickly be seen to be a sham by a small minority of the medical profession. It would, therefore, give rise to the very sort of racket about which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) spoke earlier. In this sense, again, Amendment No. 5 provides some sort of safeguard, and, above all, it strikes the middle ground in this Bill, which some of us have striven for and still hope to achieve.

Sir Lionel Heald (Chertsey)

I appeal to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) to appreciate that I am in no way hostile to him, but I must ask him to take seriously the point with regard to the non-qualification of the word "risk". A few minutes ago, we had the galaxy of Law Officers with us, both being present on the Front Bench opposite. If they were here now, I should appeal to them, but, as they are not, I can only urge my own view that, if we leave the Clause as it is, it will be interpreted by the court as covering any risk whatever.

I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that. Leaving it as it is will be like saying, in some other context, "man" and no more. It would be no good saying that the House of Commons thought that it would be a man with red hair. It is a general term. It is essential that "risk" be qualified.

Neither does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is not only risk to life. It is any risk of injury. That is as wide as the earth, and I am sure that he does not intend it. In fact, he said that that would not be the effect. With great humility, and in the presence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), who moved Amendment No. 5, I can only venture the view that one of the reasons which moved him to say that the Amendment was necessary was that very one, that the term would be unqualified otherwise. I am sure that both the Law Officers—or one of them, at least—would agree. It is a pity that they are not present now. It is so wonderful to have them both here—I do not think we have ever seen them both together before—but they are no longer present, so I must do my best to put the point to the hon. Gentleman. I urge him to accept its importance.

Mr. Angus Maude (Stratford-on-Avon)

I do not propose to detain the House very long, but I wish to add to the plea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has made no attempt to answer the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson). I think that he must have forgotten that it had been made.

Mr. David Steel

It is true that we are in some difficulty because the speech moving the Amendment was made in our last debate. I have been rereading the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He said that he tabled the Amendment on the understanding that the word "well-being" would remain in the Bill, and he argued that we could not guarantee that it would be taken out. I have put down an Amendment to remove "well-being" and, as sponsor, I must go on the assumption that my Amendments will be accepted. In the light of "wellbeing" being removed, I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument falls.

Mr. Maude

I am grateful for that intervention, but it does not justify the hon. Gentleman in not dealing with any of the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend. The hon. Gentleman replied to that part of the speech made tonight by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) on a subsidiary Amendment, and he did not address himself to the points under discussion in the main Amendment. He said that there was no doubt about the definition of "risk" and added that its nature was clearly specified in the Bill. That is true, but it does not specify the degree of risk. That is what the discussion is all about, and the hon. Member has not addressed himself to the point.

It is not even as if the Bill were consistent in this respect. In subsection (1,a)(i) there is no qualification of risk, but in subsection (1,b) it is qualified by the word "substantial". It will not do to say that it is wrong that qualify risk, to say that it is impossible.

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the hon. Gentleman addresses the Chair the Gallery will be able to hear what he says.

Mr. Maude

I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker.

It is not sensible to say that it is impossible to qualify the degree of risk when this has already been done in one subsection. What sort of situation is likely to arise when doctors, whether scrupulous or unscrupulous, are confronted with an Act drafted as the Bill is? It will not make much difference whether "wellbeing" is taken out or not. It is true that my right hon. and learned Friend said that his attitude to the Bill would be significantly affected by whether or not it was removed. He said that he and I had put the Amendment down before we knew that the sponsor intended to table an Amendment to remove "wellbeing". But whether or not it is there does not affect the dangers and difficulties with which doctors will be confronted if the Bill goes through as at present drafted, even without the word "wellbeing".

The intervention of the Minister of Health was brief and hurried. He did not reply to the question which my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) asked him, and I and a number of my hon. Friends were not quite clear what he was alleging.

11.45 p.m.

If I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright, he was saying that the heads of the professional bodies said in a letter to The times that they did not want the nature of the medical risk to be qualified. If he was referring to the letter in The Times of 29th May—he did not make clear to which one he was referring—it does not say anything about that at all.

It is true that the signatories did not positively say that they wanted the risk qualified, but they did not say that they did not want it qualified, in terms of its medical acceptability or not. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Essex. South-East (Mr. Braine) said, they were predicting the acceptability of the Bill on the fact that there would be in it the provision which the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary tried to get into the Bill in Standing Committee with his personal approval. It is a very different kind of Bill since the Minister made the volte face that he did after a disagreement with the Home Office.

Altogether, both the sponsors of the Bill and the Minister of Health have left the arguments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington absolutely untouched and unanswered. The House is entitled to a better reply from the sponsors of the Bill.

Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question he now put:—

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 98.

Division No. 405.]	AYES	[11.46 p.m.
Albu, Austen	Dalyell, Tam	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Allaun, Frank (Salford E.)	Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Allen, Scholefield	Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Anderson, Donald	Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Archer, Peter	Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)	Hamling, William
Armstrong, Ernest	Dell, Edmund	Hart, Mrs. Judith
Astor, John	Dewar, Donald	Haseldine, Norman
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Digby, Simon Wingfield	Henig, Stanley
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Dobson, Ray	Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Dunnett, Jack	Hooley, Frank
Barnes, Michael	Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Hornby, Richard
Barnett, Joel	Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Horner, John
Beaney, Alan	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Bessell, Peter	Ellis, John	Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Bidwell, Sydney	Ensor, David	Howell, David (Guildford)
Binns, John	Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)	Howie, W.
Bishop, E. S.	Fernyhough, E.	Huckfield, L.
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Finch, Harold	Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Booth, Albert	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Hunt, John
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Brooks, Edwin	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)
Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Brown, R. VI. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Fortescue, Tim	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Bruce-Cardyne, J.	Fowler, Gerry	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Cant, R. B.	Fraser, John (Norwood)	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Carlisle, Mark	Freeson, Reginald	Jones, Fit. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Garrett, W. E.	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Coe, Denis	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Judd, Frank
Concannon, J. D.	Goodhart, Philip	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Crawshaw, Richard	Gregory, Arnold	Kirk, Peter
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Gresham-Cooke, R.	Leadbitter, Ted
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)	Oram, Albert E.	Smith, John
Lestor, Miss Joan	Orme, Stanley	Snow, Julian
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Palmer, Arthur	Stonehouse, John
Lipton, Marcus	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Loughlin, Charles	Pardoe, John	Swingler, Stephen
Luard, Evan	Park, Trevor	Taverne, Dick
Lubbock, Eric	Parker, John (Dagenham)	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
MacColl, James	Pavitt, Laurence	Urwin, T. W.
MacDermot, Niall	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Maclennan, Robert	Price, William (Rugby)	Vickers, Dame Joan
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	Quennell, Miss J. M.	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Rees, Merlyn	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Mayhew, Christopher	Reynolds, G. W.	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mendelson, J. J.	Richard, Ivor	Weitzman, David
Mikardo, Ian	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)	wellbeloved, James
Millan, Bruce	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)	Whitlock, William
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Molloy, William	Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Moonman, Eric	Ryan, John	Winnick, David
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Scott, Nicholas	Winstairley, Dr. M. P.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)	Yates, Victor
Moyle, Roland	Sheldon, Robert
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Murray, Albert	Short, Rt. Hn. Edwara (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Newens, Stan	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)	Sir George Sinclair and
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)	Mr. Edward Lyons.
Ogden, Eric	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Alldritt, Walter	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Murton, Oscar
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Harris, Reader (Heston)	Oakes, Gordon
Baker, W. H. K.	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Onslow, Cranley
Biggs-Davison, John	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Oswald, Thomas
Black, Sir Cyril	Hiley, Joseph	Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn, John	Hirst, Geoffrey	Percival, Ian
Braine, Bernard	Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Buchanan, Richard (C'gow, Sp'burn)	Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Ronton, Rt. Hn, Sir David
Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Chichester-Clark, R.	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Clegg, Walter	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Small, William
Cordle, John	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Stodart, Anthony
Corfield, F. V.	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Summers, Sir Spencer
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Tapsell, Peter
Cunningham, Sir Knox	Kershaw, Anthony	Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Currie, C. B. H.	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Teeling, Sir William
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)	Tinn, James
Dance, James	McBride, Neil	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Macdonald, A, H.	Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Delargy, Hugh	McGuire, Michael	Wall, Patrick
Dempsey, James	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Ward, Dame Irene
Doughty, Charles	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Weatherill, Bernard
Dunn, James A.	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Eden, Sir John	McNamara, J. Kevin	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
English, Michael	Maddan, Martin	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Farr, John	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Foley, Maurice	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	Marten, Neil	Wright, Esmond
Galpern, Sir Myer	Maude, Angus	Wylie, N. R.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Glover, Sir Douglas	Mellish, Robert	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Goodhew, Victor	Monro, Hector	Mr. R. Grant-Ferris and
Gower, Raymond	Montgomery, Fergus	Mr. Robert Cooke.

Question put accordingly, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 179.

Division No. 406.]	AYES	[11.55 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Clegg, Walter	Delargy, Hugh
Alldritt, Walter	Cordle, John	Dempsey, James
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Corfield, F. V.	Doughty, Charles
Baker, W. H. K.	Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Dunn, James A.
Biggs-Davison, John	Cunningham, Sir Knox	Eden, Sir John
Black, Sir Cyril	Currie, G. B. H.	English, Michael
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Dalkeith, Earl of	Farr, John
Braine, Bernard	Dalyell, Tarn	Fisher, Nigel
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Dance, James	Foley, Maurice
Chichester-Clark, R.	Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Galpern, Sir Myer	Macdonald, A. H.	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	McGuire, Michael	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Clover, Sir Douglas	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Goodhew, Victor	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Small, William
Cower, Raymond	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Summers, Sir Spencer
Hamilton, James (Both well)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Maddan, Martin	Teeling, Sir William
Harris, Reader (Heston)	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Tinn, James
Harvie Anderson, Miss	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Heald, Rt Hn. Sir Lionel	Marten, Neil	Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Hiley, Joseph	Maude, Angus	Wall, Patrick
Hirst, Geoffrey	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. c.	Ward, Dame Irene
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Mellish, Robert	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Monro, Hector	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Montgomery, Fergus	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Murton, Oscar	Wilson, Geoffrey (Turo)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Oakes, Gordon	Wright, Esmond
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Onslow, Cranley	Wylie, N. R.
Kerby, Capt. Henry	Osborn, John (Hallam)
Kerr, Mr. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Oswald, Thomas	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Knight, Mrs. Jill	Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)	Mr. Grant-Ferris and
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)	Percival, Ian	Mr. Robert Cooke.
McBride, Neil	Price, David (Eastleigh)
NOES
Albu, Austen	Freeeon, Reginald	Molloy, William
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Garrett, W. E.	Moonman, Eric
Allen, Scholefield	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Anderson, Donald	Goodhart, Philip	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Archer, Peter	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn, P. C.	Moyle, Roland
Armstrong, Ernest	Gregory, Arnold	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Astor, John	Gresham Cooke, R.	Murray, Albert
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Newens, Stan
Bacon, Rt Hn. Alice	Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Norwood, Christopher
Barnes, Michael	Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	Ogden, Eric
Barnett, Joel	Hamling, William	Oram, Albert E,
Beaney, Al[...]	Haseldine, Norman	Orme, Stanley
Besseli, Peter	Henig, Stanley	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Stn)
Bidwell, Sydney	Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)	Palmer, Arthur
Binns, John	Hooley, Frank	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Bishop, E. S.	Hornby, Richard	Pardoe, John
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Horner, John	Park, Trevor
Booth, Albert	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Brooks, Edwin	Howell, David (Guildford)	Pavitt, Laurence
Brown, Bob(N'ctle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Howie, W.	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Huckfield, L.	Price, William (Rugby)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Hunt, John	Rees, Merlyn
Cant, R. B.	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Reynolds, G. W.
Carlisle, Mark	Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'eras, S.)	Richards, Ivor
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Roberta, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Coe, Denis	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Robinson, Rt.Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Concannon, J. D.	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Crawshaw, Richard	Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Ryan, John
Crosland, Rt. Hn, Anthony	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Scott, Nicholaa
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Judd, Frank	Sharpies, Richard
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Sheldon, Robert
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)	Kirk, Peter	Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Dell, Edmund	Leadbitter, Ted	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tlc-u-Tyne)
Dewar, Donald	Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Lestor, Miss Joan	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Dobson, Ray	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Dunnett, Jack	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Smith, John
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Lipton, Marcus	Snow, Julian
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Loughlin, Charles	Spriggs, Leslie
Edwards, Robert (Bilaton)	Luard, Evan	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Ellis, John	Lubbock, Eric	Stonehouse, John
Ensor, David	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)	MacColl, James	Swingler, Stephen
Fernyhough, E.	MacDermot, Niall	Taverne, Dick
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Maclennan, Robert	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Maxwelt-Hyslop, R. J.	Urwin, T. W.
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Mayhew, Christopher	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Mendelson, J. J.	Vickers, Dame Joan
Forrester, John	Mikardo, Ian	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Fowler, Gerry	Millan, Bruce	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Fraser, John (Norwood)	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Weitzman, David	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Welbeloved, James	Winnick, David	Sir George Sinclair and
Whitlock, William	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.	Mr. Edward Lyons.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)	Yates, Victor

Sir D. Glover

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to delay the House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Ironic interruptions do not help the speed of the passage of the Bill through the House. Sir Douglas Glover.

Sir D. Glover

Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill in which there is a great deal of interest. One only has to look at the House at this time of the morning to realise that. Many of us have not heard the Committee stage of the Bill. On the last Amendment the vote was taken before the Minister or the sponsor of the Bill replied to the debate—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Parliamentarian. The question of the Closure is a matter of the Chair's acceptance or not. The hon. Member cannot question this at all. He knows that.

We now come to Amendment No. 55, with which we are taking Amendment No. 10, in page 1, line 12, leave out from 'woman' to end of line 13, on which I promised a Division;

No. 11 in line 12, leave out from 'woman' to 'and' in line 13.

No. 12 in line 12, leave out 'future'.

No. 46 in line 12, after 'future', insert 'physical or mental'.

No. 13 in line 13, leave out 'and or the child'.

No. 14 in line 13, leave out 'or her other children'.

No. 15 in line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (ii).

and No. 16 in line 14, leave out 'risk' and insert 'probability'.

which are linked together. Mr. David Steel.

Earl of Dalkeith (Edinburgh, North)

Mr. Speaker, may I seek your guidance? When we started discussing this stage of the Bill, you, in your wisdom, put down on your list of Amendments for discussion with Amendment No. 55, Amendment No. 48 which, through the whims of the printers or perhaps because of the procedures by which they are bound, no longer appears on this Amendment Paper. I am wondering, therefore, whether I would still be able to discuss this Amendment in view of the fact that it is a radically different approach to the Bill and has not so far been discussed in Committee.

Mr. Speaker

If I may breach a private confidence, I thought that I had made this clear to the noble Lord. The simple fact is that my selection of Amendments today does not include Amendment No. 48 to which the noble Lord is referring, although my provisional list did include it on 2nd June, because since then the circumstances in which it might have been debated are no longer applicable.

Mr. David Steel

I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 1, line 11, after 'life', to insert: 'of the pregnant woman'. This is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 56, in line 12, leave out from 'or' to end of line 13 and insert: 'any existing children of her family, and'. As I would be in difficulty in discussing Amendment No. 55 without reference to No. 56, would it be convenient to discuss them together?

Mr. Speaker

That may be done if it is the will of the House.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Speaker

The will of the House is against discussing Amendment No. 56 with this Amendment.

Mr. Steel

Amendment No. 55 is merely a paving Amendment to insert the words "of the pregnant woman" after the word "life" in order that we may come to the later Amendment. Therefore, I am in some little difficulty.

May I draw attention to what I said during the Committee stage when we were discussing this part of the Bill. In Committee, at the end of a long debate on the form of words which subsection (1,a) should take, I said that as far as making sure that the effect of the words in the Bill will be that for which we hope, certainly I think we should take advice from Parliamentary draftsmen, and I am prepared to consider whether the Amendment which was then under discussion which I think we should accept, may not produce the perfect wording and the intention of this Committee can be better expressed. I am quite prepared to see if we can translate the intention of the Committee into still better terms than we have succeeded in doing in three mornings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 15th February, 1967; c. 253.] Since then, I have pursued that undertaking. I have taken advice from a Parliamentary draftsman, and in view of the advice which I have received I propose to make certain changes to the Bill to remove the reference to "well-being" and the reference to "of … the child".

I prefer to make my substantial remarks about why we are doing this on Amendment 56. It is difficult to be in order on the paving Amendment alone. Therefore, I merely say that this is a paving Amendment, and I hope that the House will accept it quickly so that we can discuss the main point of the argument at a later stage.

Mrs. Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

I rise, first, to move Amendment—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Lady can talk about the Amendments which are grouped with the Amendment under discission, but she cannot move an Amendment at this stage. We are already on an Amendment.

Mrs. Knight

I am grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I wish to speak particularly on one of the group of Amendments, No. 10. It is a very—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I hope that we will not have a background of conversation during the debates.

Mrs. Knight

It is a very great triumph for those of us who have opposed "well-being" throughout Second Reading and Committee that at last the sponsor of the Bill appears to recognise that our arguments were good and sensible. It has taken a great deal of effort to make him see reason about this, and it is—[Interruption.] It is indeed a matter which we discussed for many hours in Committee, when the sponsor of the Bill was adamant that "well-being" would remain in the Clause. There is no question that this move on his part tonight is a very great triumph for those of us who hoped that we would have some kind of reason brought into the Bill.

We are discussing particularly social abortion. It involves also a judgment which, it seems to me, must be a moral judgment. Sometimes it may be argued that abortion is justified on social grounds. For myself, I have made it clear that when medical grounds are involved, I am with the suggestion all the way. We are now discussing social grounds, however, and whether it is right for an abortion to be committed simply and solely because the coming child is unwelcome to its parents.—[Interruption.] The sponsors and supporters of the Bill make constant efforts so that I shall not be heard, but I assure them that they will not be successful because this is an important point and one on which strong feelings are held. There is no question of filibustering or of making speeches which it is not necessary to make. These are vital matters which we are discussing, and we must surely be given time to discuss them properly. Social reasons cover a wide range. They could be trivial. A mother might want an abortion so that a planned holiday is not postponed or other arrangements interfered with.

But they might be serious. Everyone would understand if a mother of 10 children did not know how she would manage when another was due, but too little has been said about contraception. It is absurd to say that a woman today has to go on having unwanted children. There have never been so many safe aids to avoid pregnancy. We are discussing pregnancy caused by inefficient or nonexistent contraception, and the sponsors must recognise that there must be a better reason than just a child not being wanted by its parents. Under the Clause we must weigh social considerations against morality.

A letter which I have received from an experienced gynaecologist reads: As a gynaecologist, one's attitude is inevitably conditioned by … years of gynaecological practice. It would be wrong to claim that these views represent those of all British gynaecologists some gynaecologists are, in fact, ardent supporters of abortion law reform. It goes on to say how many: In this (Leeds) Hospital Region there are 29 consultant gynaecologists, and 28 expressed their opposition to the proposed abortion law reform and stated their unwillingness to alter their practice if the Bill became law … Another poll of gynaecologists conducted at a meeting in Birmingham on January 21st 1967, gave a figure of 192 against the Bill to 5 supporting while the 26-membered council of the Royal College of Obstetricians unanimously adopted a report, opposing the introduction of social abortion. What, then, are the reasons for this strong opposition to abortion on the part of a section of the medical profession who actually deal with the matter at first hand? Have we private, professional knowledge which leads us to this position as a group? It would be reasonable to suppose so.

If such knowledge exists, why has it been suppressed from the public at large? He makes it clear that the reason is that doctors' knowledge about what abortion involves is often painful and upsetting to the women concerned.

Normally, medical men do not talk about this kind of operation because it is very upsetting. But the time has come to talk about it and to try to understand what abortion involves. Only then can we say that it is right to carry it out for social reasons. Far too many people who support the Bill have said, time and time again, that it is merely a matter of removing a mass of cells. They have said it so often that many people believe them. In fact, it is not true. It must be clearly understood that at the stage at which most abortions take place, the child is perfectly recognisable as an infant, with arms, lees, ears and toes. It is no use the supporters of the Bill pretending that all we are arguing about is the removal of a few blood clots and that nobody will bother about that.

In this context we must look at a series of experiments which were recently carried out, notably by Dr. Liley in New Zealand, who is a world expert on inter-uterine transfusion. He, with Professor Scott of Leeds, has been carrying out some experiments about which the House should know. They deal with whether the child in utero feels pain. For some time they have been conducting these experiments, and they now have absolutely no doubt at all that in fact the child does feel pain. For example, they have stuck needles into a child and watched the reaction on an X-ray screen. There is no doubt at all in the minds of these eminent men that the child in utero immediately gave a very violent pain reaction when a needle was stuck into it. They said that the only reason why it did not cry was the water in which it was surrounded.

These men say that the child feels pain. There may be others—I have not come across them—who say that it does not. Even if there were no proof, even if we could say no more than that there was a suspicion that a child in utero feels pain, then we should consider what we were doing. There are three main methods of carrying out—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Lady is getting a little wide of the Amendment. I am sure that she can bring herself into order quickly, but she is not relating her remarks specifically to the Amendment.

Mrs. Knight

I am, in particular, tying to show why I feel that to carry out an abortion merely for a social reason is a bad thing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I understand what the hon. Lady is doing, but she must continually relate what she is saying to the Amendment.

Mrs. Knight

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your guidance.

We must recognise that if an abortion is carried out merely because the child is inconvenient, then considerable pain is inflicted on the child for that reason. While that may be acceptable when the health of the mother is involved, to do it merely because the child is not wanted is, to my mind, a dreadful thing to do.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

On a point of order. Since my hon. Friend has been speaking—and she is making an extremely serious speech—she has been subjected to a barrage of discourteous interruptions from hon. Gentlemen opposite. These have not only been disturbing her speech, but have made it difficult for those of us who are extremely interested in this subject to hear what my hon. Friend is saying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will leave the matter of order to the Chair. The hon. Lady is making an interesting speech. I will intervene if and when necessary.

Mrs. Knight

Hon. Members must decide whether it is right to have an operation to remove the child from the womb, and then let it die—and sometimes it takes a considerable time for it to die; hon. Members should have no doubt about that. If that method is not unacceptable when a child is simply not wanted, are hon. Members content to have the second method and, if so, would they consider that more acceptable? If so, they should know a little about the second method which they are asking doctors to invoke, simply because a child is unwanted.

The second method is to dilate the neck of the womb and insert forceps. Then the part of the child that the forceps can reach is pulled out. The sponsor of the Bill has seen this operation and knows what is involved. Have other hon. Members seen it? Do they have the knowledge to make this enormous decision? Is it a wise, moral and kind judgment to say that, simply because a child is not wanted, forceps should be inserted so that they can pull out first perhaps a leg, then an arm, then the head, then a piece of chest—all simply because the child is not wanted?

Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby)

Would not the hon. Lady agree that the terrible things about which she is talking are exactly the things she is asking me House to support in Amendment No. 27, which is in her name?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are not discussing Amendment No. 37 in this group of Amendments. The hon. Lady would, therefore, be out of order in replying to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mrs. Knight

We will come to that Amendment later.

To do the terrible things about which I have been speaking, there must be a good reason. Simply because a child is not wanted is not a good enough reason.

The third method of abortion which hon. Members are asking doctors to perform—for no better reason than the child is not wanted—is to pickle the child, so to speak; to inject a solution and pickle it in utero. Considerable pain—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I do not want to keep interrupting the hon. Lady. I must point out that she is going into this matter in very great detail. She must come to the precise terms of the Amendment.

Sir Knox Cunningham (Antrim, South)

On a point of order. Surely my hon. Friend's remarks are in order in discussing Amendment No. 10. She is giving examples to show what will happen if a child, merely because it is unwanted, is treated in this way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I have not said that the hon. Lady is completely' out of order: merely that she is going into too much detail—[Interruption.]—and I would like her to deal with the replacement of certain words, as proposed in the Amendment.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Simon Mahon (Bootle)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These Amendments cover a very wide field. We are all interested in what the hon. Lady is saying. If I read Amendment No. 55 correctly, it refers to the risk to the life of the pregnant woman. Is not the hon. Lady pointing out some aspects of abortion which could be very detrimental to the life of the woman concerned, or put it at risk?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman is now getting into the debate himself? It would be better to allow the hon. Lady to proceed, and then I can decide what is in order. Mrs. Knight.

Mrs. Knight

I ask the House to understand that my feelings on this matter are prompted by my intense horror on discovering these facts. If Amendment No. 10 is carried, it will mean that at least these things will not be done for a bad reason. It is very true to say that the House in general has no notion of precisely what it is asking doctors to do for a very slender reason. If it were merely a question of scooping out a clot or two it would not be a real case to me, because one might say that the mother's well-being—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. With the greatest respect, the hon. Lady has already informed the House of this fact. She is getting just a little repetitious.

Mrs. Knight

I am endeavouring to the best of my ability to inform the House precisely why I am so anxious that the word "well-being" should be removed from the Bill, and that Amendment No. 10 should be accepted.

The social reasons to which I have referred are not sufficient to justify the things I have described. One can only view with equanimity everything that has been described if it is done for a very good reason. The gynaecologist's view of this very important matter is almost invariably the same. A good gynaecologist of many years' experience will say that in every case he has not only one patient but two, and that he regards the second, though smaller, as being just as important as the first. Even if the baby is unacceptable to the parents, as one gynaecologist wrote to me, I see adoption as the humane answer rather than its destruction on such flimsy grounds. He said that because of the horror of what an abortion means. We cannot expect this of gynaecologists who, at this very time, are perfecting the means of caring for children in utero—we all know of the recent case of a child's blood being changed in utero—a technique to which doctors are directing their utmost energy with mounting success. We cannot expect skilled medical men on the one hand to do everything they can to protect the child in utero and, on the other hand, to get rid of a child just because it is not wanted by the mother.

We would be putting the gynaecologist into an impossible situation. A mother may go to the gynaecologist and say, as she could under the Bill as it stands, "I don't want this child—please may I get rid of it? The laws says that I may." In that case, it is important to understand precisely what we are asking the gynaecologist to do, because we cannot ask him to protect one child, and to discard another just because the mother does not want it.

In this context, it is important to recognise the harm which can be done to the mother by an abortion. Again, the harm is only acceptable if there is a good reason. By the time most abortions are carried out, it has become an operation carrying risks. We have heard members of the Committee say that there is no risk. Others have said that there is a risk. It is one of the many aspects of the Bill about which we know far too little.

If one says to a doctor, "This woman does not want her child, so will you please carry out an abortion?", surely the doctor must weigh up the dangers to which that woman is being exposed. It is not just a question of the danger to a woman's health which arises from the abortion itself, because, unless these Amendments are accepted, a mother would be laying herself open to harm in quite another way. For example, the stretching of the neck of the cervix can cause haemorrhage. It may result in the inability to hold subsequent and much wanted pregnancies. All too often, a woman who does not want a child for purely social reasons at one stage subsequently wants one desperately. It is important to recognise that what is called cervical incompetence can arise from an abortion. It is vital to realise that there must be a better reason for carrying out this operation than we have at present. There are many other dangers attaching to the operation which I will not dwell upon, but it is terrible for a woman subsequently to want a child and find that she cannot have one.

It is true to say that many women suffer serious consequences from having an abortion, not on health grounds but simply because she did not want a child. It can cause her the gravest mental anguish for having brought about the death of her own child. Recently, I received a letter from a woman who said that when she was 18, her father had threatened to throw her out of the house unless she had an abortion. She was taken to a psychiatrist and had to pretend to be suicidal. She had an abortion. After the operation, she really felt suicidal, and she said in her moving letter to me that she has never got over the frightful feeling of loss. She became sterile, and has since had two nervous breakdowns. It is not an uncommon story.

By virtue of this Bill, a woman or girl who did not wish to have her child would be able to get rid of it. People should recognise that it is not a light matter to say, "I do not want this child, but, as a result of this Bill, it will be all right to get rid of it." It must be remembered there are dangers to the mother as I have described, and horrible things must happen to the unborn child.

In my Amendment, I sought to delete the words, or the future wellbeing of herself and or the child or her other children. I am amazed that people should so lightly regard the dangers to the mother which I have described. They even take into account some unknown hazard to the other children in the family—a hazard which is not outlined in the Bill in any way, shape or form. In other words, she may be as fit as a flea but, because the other children may suffer some deprivation, she may get rid of the child. It is difficult to imagine what deprivation would be serious enough to justify getting rid of the child. I have sought to make my Amendment confined solely and simply to the health of the mother and not to her wellbeing.

These are matters which it is important that the House should understand. I much deplore the difficulty I have found in speaking. I assure the House that I speak from the heart when I say that these are matters hon. Members should understand and on which they should not shout me down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will leave order to the Chair. I do not think she was being shouted down, but I hope that she will proceed.

Mrs. Knight

I have almost finished what I want to say. Believe me, if it were merely a question of filibustering, I could go on very much longer. The House should know the facts. Knowing these facts, I cannot believe that the House will not accept the Amendment.

The Secretary of State to the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins)

While we may not all share the hon. Lady's slightly obsessive interest in the details of this problem—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think the House is anxious to hear the debate and, I am sure, to hear the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that it will give him the same attention as it gave to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Jenkins rose—

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Jenkins

I have not the slightest intention of withdrawing the comment in half a sentence which I think was entirely called for by certain parts of the hon. Lady's speech. Although we may not share her view, I think she is making a great mistake if she thinks that anyone on either side of the House who has studied and applied himself to these matters think that abortion is anything other than a very nasty business which should be resorted to only in certain circumstances, but one does not necessarily take the easy view that she does that an abortion may be for a good or a bad reason.

I must confess that I was a little surprised when, after hearing the hon. Lady, with some other hon. Members, shout "No" to the proposal that Amendment No. 56 should be taken with Amendment No. 55, she then said this was a vital matter which she wanted to be fully discussed. It is difficult to discuss it fully unless this Amendment, and Amendment No. 17, which is consequential, is taken at the same time.

Without going into detail, certainly not nearly as much detail as the hon. Lady went, I want to give some indication of my attitude to these Amendments. I think it reasonable that there should be a Government reply to this Amendment and Amendment No. 55, which will also cover No. 56 and No. 17. I do not thing the House should expert any further reply on those other Amendments.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I happen to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it was a pity that the word "Object" was heard by the Chair when the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) sought to enter into the merits of what really is a substantive Amendment under discussion, but on this point of order I must also say that if the right hon. Gentleman seeks now to give a Government reply on Amendment No. 56, which I regret is not being discussed now, it would be intolerable if the House was not able to discuss Amendment No. 56. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to reply to Amendment No. 56 he must do so in the unfortunate course which matters have taken.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Jenkins

I am endeavouring to give the House a view, speaking departmentally and for myself, about the position which arises in relation to this important group of Amendments. My judgment was that this could best be done by intervening at this stage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The House itself has put the Chair in some difficulty, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has pointed out. Whether the Home Secretary makes a reply on a subsequent Amendment is a matter for him at the time. He can only make such allusion to Amendment No. 56 as would make intelligible Amendment No. 55. We cannot have a discussion on the one which the House has objected to taking with this one.

Sir Knox Cunningham

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood the Home Secretary to say that he would also reply to Amendment No. 17 which is not called and which is not before the House. Is that in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Obviously the same applies to Amendment No. 17 as to Amendment No. 56.

Mr. Maude

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to delay the House further, but I think that we are all in a difficulty here, because the grouping of these Amendments is a little bizarre. We have paving Amendments for one lot of Amendments taken with paving Amendments for another lot of Amendments which are not the same. Unless we sort ourselves out, it will be awfully difficult for everybody.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I hope that the House will not spend too much time on this matter. The selection has been made. The House has declared its objection to the Amendments being taken together. We must somehow proceed on the basis of the decision already taken by the House.

Mr. Braine

Further to that point of order. I do not wish to delay the House. If the Home Secretary wishes to address the House in this way, that is entirely up to him. I do not wish in any way to challenge his right to reply in the way that he thinks fit. He has chosen to do this and to rise after only two speeches. This is one of the most crucial parts of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I must intervene. The hon. Gentleman is not on a point of order now. It would be much better if the House allowed the Home Secretay to make his intervention and for the Chair to decide whether he is in or out of order as the speech proceeds.

Mr. Braine

With respect, I had not developed my point. The Home Secretary has intervened at an extremely early stage in the debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to his point of order very quickly.

Mr. Braine

It is clear that we are to be exposed to the operation of the closure throughout the night. All I am asking is whether there can be an understanding that the debate will not be curtailed as a result of the Home Secretary's rising now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not a point of order.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Further to that point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot add further to a point of order which was not a point of order.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Merely for the guidance of the House, is it not correct to say that we are not only discussing a paving Amendment—No. 55—but that what is being discussed are Amendments Nos. 11, 10, 12, 46, 13, 14, 15 and 16, all of which contain substantive points?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

This is correct.

Mr. Jenkins

Clearly what I must address myself to is Amendment No. 55 and those which are being taken with it, but I would have thought it was the wish of the House that I should endeavour to give as intelligible a reply to this group of Amendments as is within my capacity, and the House would not wish—

Mr. Braine

The right hon. Gentleman has not heard the argument.

Mr. Jenkins

I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting a little unable to contain himself rather early in the night.

Sir Knox Cunningham

The right hon. Gentleman is speaking rather early in the night.

Mr. Jenkins

If hon. Gentlemen do not wish to have the argument on what I regard as a most important group of Amendments conducted in an intelligible way, one is bound to draw one's own conclusions about their attitude to this debate.

I shall endeavour, and I trust I shall be successful, to keep strictly within the rules of order. As the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) rightly said, there are other Amendments of substance, and what the House has to decide is whether Amendment No. 55, which is a paving Amendment to an Amendment of substance, is to be preferred to the other Amendments of substance which are being discussed with the paving Amendment. There is no doubt that there is a certain difficulty about conducting an intelligible debate on this unless one is able to take the two together, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who I know treats these matters very seriously, would wish to have the debate conducted in an intelligible way and be helped to make an intelligent choice between the different possibilities before the House.

Taking into account these Amendments, and those for which they must be paving—because the paving Amendments would not otherwise make sense—what I understand the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) is proposing is that Clause 1 (1,a) should he amended to read that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family, and in determining whether there is such risk of injury to the health account may be taken of the patient's total environment, actual or reasonably foreseeable.

As the hon. Lady the Member for Edgbaston said, this makes a fairly important change in the Bill as it emerged from Committee, but a change which I think should not be altogether surprising either to those who were on the Committee, or who followed the proceedings from outside. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State in speaking at one stage made it clear that while she would vote for an Amendment in her personal capacity, though I would have done the same had I been there, which produced this subsection in the form in which the Bill emerged from Committee, she thought that it would require another substantial look at it before the House considered it on Report.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, and those associated with him, have had a substantial further look at it, and I think that as a result are in the course of producing a version of this subsection which should be a good deal more acceptable to moderate opinion on this issue generally. "Well-being", which is a vague and difficult phrase, comes out completely. I only mention Amendment No. 17 because, clearly, if "well-being" comes out in one, it is sensible that it should go out in the other. We also get rid of the difficulty of the rather maladroit reference in the subsection as it emerged from the Committee to the health or well-being—because well-being was still in—of the child itself as well as of other children.

Sir Spencer Summers (Aylesbury)

The right hon. Gentleman is asserting that we can look forward with confidence to the elimination of the word "well-being". Will he tell us whether the name of the sponsor of the Bill alone to the Amendment is sufficient assurance for us all to assume that its other supporters will follow the hon. Gentleman into the Division Lobby?

Mr. Jenkins

I do not think that that is a point for me. I assure the hon. Gentleman, if it is any help to him, that I shall vote for the deletion of the word "well-being", and so I believe will my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, but this is a Private Member's Bill, with a free vote for everybody, at least I think everybody, certainly on this side of the House—

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst (Shipley)

The Government Front Bench is well whipped.

Mr. Jenkins

The hon. Gentleman really does live in a fantasy world of his own if he believes that to be so.

Mr. Grant-Ferris (Nantwich)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary has made the innuendo that some of us are under some direction or other. Is not that a most improper suggestion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Jenkins

Some hon. Members are getting into a very touchy frame of mind at an early stage of what is likely to be a long night. So far from making any such innuendo myself, I was subjected to an innuendo from the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst)—which, I confess, does not excite me unduly—that the whole of the Treasury Bench had been whipped right, left and centre. If that were so, one could only comment that it looks a bit thin at this moment. There is certainly a free vote for everyone on this side of the House, and I have no doubt that the same goes for the other side, too.

That being so, it follows that I cannot give the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) the assurance for which he asks. It would be totally incompatible with the free vote, about which his hon. Friends get so excited, suggesting that it must be preserved at all costs. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman what I propose to do when this matter comes to a Division.

As I was saying, in addition to taking "well-being" out, the Amendments also leave out the somewhat unfortunate reference to the child itself. One difficulty about the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson)—we have so many before us that it is difficult to be sure of the number, but I think that it is No. 11—is that, while it would leave out "well-being", it would not get rid of the maladroitness of the reference to the child itself. That is the difficulty there.

Mr. Deedes

Later Amendments coupled with it look after that point.

Mr. Jenkins

Yes, but Amendment No. 11 taken by itself does not do so.

Sir Knox Cunningham

We are discussing others with it.

Mr. Deedes

It is Nos. 13 and 14.

Mr. Jenkins

Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 also look after it completely. Amendment No. 10, to which the hon. Lady the Member for Edgbaston spoke, would remove any reference not merely to the child but to any other children. I think that it may well be taken—it is a matter on which the House will form and express a view—that to leave out any such reference would be to make the Bill very narrow indeed and, I think, not to extend it beyond the state of the law now on the basis of the cases as at present interpreted.

What does emerge from what is here proposed is that a reasonable balance has been struck between those who want a Bill which clarifies the law and also somewhat widens it and those who certainly do not want to move towards what is sometimes called abortion on demand. In this way, we should be striking a reasonable balance and making the Bill a worth while and reforming Measure which should at the same time be acceptable, though not to everyone, to a good deal of moderate opinion both inside the House and outside.

I think that the subsection as redrafted would be technically workable. If I may say so, I feel that there is an illusion in some quarters of the House that, by some mysterious device—a Royal Commission, by postponement for a Session, by further thought, or by a Select Committee—we could get rid of all the problems in drafting a Bill on abortion. Having studied this subject now for several months, and with expert advice, it is my view that we could have all the Royal Commissions, all the Select Committees, or all the Sessions in the world but we still would have an immensely difficult job in drafting statute law about abortion.

In my view, the Bill with the Amendments which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has put before us is not a mess. It has had difficulties. It has had a difficult Committee stage. There are very different strands of opinion. One may disagree with the Bill as it will be amended, or one may agree with it, but one cannot, I think, take the view that it does not express what it is sought to express with reasonable clarity, and anyone who imagines that there is some formula which would be immensely more clear and satisfactory to everybody is deceiving himself.

1.0 a.m.

Sir Knox Cunningham

The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the extreme difficulty of the problem, and the whole House agrees. Would it not therefore be an advantage to have the advice of a Royal Commission? Surely that would be helpful?

Sir Myer Galpern (Glasgow, Shettleston)

I welcome the indication that there is to be a substantial amendment to the Clause, but I take it that "well-being" will be retained in sub-paragraph (ii) of subsection (1,a).

Hon. Members

No.

Sir M. Galpern

I am grateful. I was not clear on that.

My right hon. Friend said that reference of the matter to a Royal Commission would create tremendous problems, but he prefaced his intervention by saying that abortion was a very serious business. Therefore, surely it would not be too much trouble to refer the matter to a Royal Commission in the hope that it could advise on a method or formula acceptable to all reasonable people?

I am attracted by Amendment No. 15, and shall support it. It seeks to leave out sub-paragraph (ii), which I invite hon. Members to read carefully, because it lays down: in determining whether or not there is such risk of injury to health or well-being account may be taken of the patient's total environment actual or reasonably foreseeable; An hon. Gentleman opposite referred tonight to the number of suicides in Glasgow where no pregnancy was noted. Unfortunately, the city of Glasgow has many slums. We are doing our best to remedy that situation as rapidly as possible, but it may be a long process. In my opinion, "environment" can mean largely the housing conditions of the pregnant woman. If we allow the subparagraph to remain two young, inexperienced, registered medical practitioners without any knowledge of the social conditions of Glasgow or any other large city with slums can decide between them that an abortion should be carried out because of injury to health brought about by the patient's total environment, caused by the failure of the local authority or our society to provide decent, reasonable accommodation.

The absence of an inside toilet, the absence of a bathroom, overcrowded conditions in slum property living huddled together in sub-let single rooms—these are conditions that are not peculiar to Glasgow. We know about Rachmanism and conditions in London and every large city. They are all conditions of environment. Yet we say that two young people who have not been trained in social service, and who have grossly inadequate knowledge of social conditions, are to be permitted, if the sub-paragraph remains, to determine that women seeking an abortion who show that they are living under such conditions are entitled to an abortion.

Looking at the other side of the coin, a woman may have her name on the housing list. A month or so after the abortion has been carried out because of her unfortunate environmental conditions she may be allocated a new house and her environmental conditions transformed from a pigsty to a palace. How can environmental conditions be reasonably foreseeable to two young inexperienced registered medical practitioners? They do not know. It is like a man backing a horse. How does he know what will happen?

Could the sponsor assure us that the young practitioners would call upon the housing manager in Glasgow, London or Birmingham to ascertain the chances of the patient obtaining a house in the near future? Doctors are grossly overworked, and analysing the peculiar environmental conditions and the prospects of housing of the patient would take a great deal of time. It would mean reference to a social worker. Or is the sponsor prepared to say that if the doctors agree to abortion of a woman because of her environmental conditions, the local authority should be asked to provide a house for her immediately? Is the local authority to abandon all its responsibility in this matter? Is the patient simply to be able to say "This is how I am living"? Her living conditions may change within a week or month. Is the doctor simply to say "I agree with you. You will he aborted"?

Many factors enter into it. It is far too dangerous to allow this decision to two young registered medical practitioners. The Minister refused to quote from a letter something which indicated the position of eminent persons in the medical, surgical and obstetrical world. He left out the part dealing with the qualifications they said should be held. It could happen that two young inexperienced medical practitioners would be making vital decisions on social problems.

The doctors may enter a house of squalor, filfth and dirt where the husband is a chronic drunkard. In three months' time the individual may see the light, sign the pledge and become a teetotaler. Surely a social worker should be responsible for ascertaining whether the woman can be helped before it is decided to abort her, which the Home Secretary said is a dangerous business. Is anyone going to look into the social aspects and make an effort to change the environmental conditions in order to save the woman from having a serious surgical operation? Has the sponsor given serious thought to this? I am sure he has but I should like to know. Has he tried to evaluate the decisions to be reached by a medical practitioner when a woman desires abortion because of her environmental conditions and the possibility of changing the conditions rather than her undergoing an abortion? If it were to be left simply that that medical practitioner should define the conditions when he examines the patient, or when the patient makes a request for abortion, I think we should be subtracting from the responsibilities of the local authorities and the work which they ought to undertake. For these reasons I would hope that the two registered medical practitioners will not be empowered to decide on environmental conditions that a woman should have to undergo the most serious operation of an abortion.

Miss Harvie Anderson (Renfrew, East)

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, I wonder if he would be good enough to remind the House of the size of the waiting list for houses in Glasgow and the number of years the average young couple have to wait for a house and who meanwhile are living in a totally unsuitable environment in which to bring up children?

Sir M. Galpern

What the hon. Lady says is quite true. Surely, in that serious situation in which a patient has aproached a medical practitioner and asked for an abortion, this serious operation, the local authority should be asked to make some special dispensation or some special arrangement to house that family, if the conditions are so bad as to lead to mental ill health. Surely, before a medical practitioner engages in such circumstances in such a serious business as this some such special effort should be made.

Mr. Dance

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I agree entirely with what he is saying? Many people have come to my "surgeries" in just those circumstances, and one has put their case forward and sometimes been able to get them accommodation. I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman said. Does he not agree that it is a good argument for saying that it would be dangerous to allow the abortion where there is a chance of the family going to better, more suitable, accommodation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I hope that the hon. Member will not intervene every time he agrees with another hon. Member.

Sir M. Galpern

I personally welcome intervensions of that character. The more the better. But having support from that quarter, I am prepared to rest my case, and I hope that the sub-paragraph will be deleted.

Earl of Dalkeith

The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary appeared to be slightly critical of those who are seeking to improve the drafting of the Bill, and he even went so far as to say that he thought that those of us who thought they could devise a better form of wording were deceiving themselves. Obviously I am one who, in his eyes, is deceiving himself, but I think it is possible to devise a better form of wording, and I am only sorry that we are not able tonight to discuss Amendment No. 48 because of some strange quirk of circumstances which prevents me from doing so. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman had examined it he would have found it helpful.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

Had we been able to debate it I should have had to point out no fewer than four drafting defects in it.

Earl of Dalkeith

I am prepared to accept that there were drafting errors in it, but they could have been amended.

I rise to address myself to Amendment No. 46 which stands in my name and which has been selected for discussion along with No. 55. The House will see, and it is clear, that what I am thereby trying to do is to qualify the word "well-being". Here we come up against a difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman referred to earlier. If the word "well-being" is to go out, then the qualifying words I am seeking to put in will not be necessary. But again we do not know because it is not until we vote on this Amendment that we shall know whether "well-being" is going out. Meantime, one can only hope that words like this will not be acceptable to the House.

If one does have these qualifying words "physical or mental" before the word "well-being", surely it is unnecessary to have the phrase at all for it merely repeats what is said earlier in the Bill. I protest vigorously against the words we are having to deal with. If the nuances of "well-being" can be construed in so many different ways, I am grateful for the suggestion that later there might be a chance that the word will be put out of the Bill.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Hogg

I had intended to reserve my few remarks for the substantive Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), and, indeed, if he is seriously attacked from any quarter it may be that I shall come to his support then. I find this a difficult series of Amendments, and I would like tentatively to put the views I feel about them and about the paving Amendment as the debate has developed.

As the law stands, a doctor who decides for any reason to terminate a pregnancy, at any rate in theory if not in practice, has to make his professional judgment in the knowledge that he must understand correctly the judgment or, rather, the summing-up, of Mr. Justice Macnaughton in 1938 to an Old Bailey jury which acquitted, and that, if he gets it wrong, he may find himself subject to a criminal prosecution.

The principal change proposed in the Bill is to substitute for this degree of at any rate theoretical uncertainty the fact that, if he gets another medical practitioner to agree with him in good faith, he can substitute confidence that he is acting within at any rate the criminal law in terminating a pregnancy.

I have already said that, to that extent, I am sure that, provided that there are proper safeguards, this is an advance and it is an assistance to a professional man in deciding what must be for him both a painful and a difficult professional choice. It is quite proper that the great majority of hon. Members should be thinking of the mother in such cases, but it happens that the whole of my professional life leads me to think also of the professional man who has to take a decision in such circumstances, and I think that it is right that the House should bear this in mind. I favour this change to that extent.

But the price we have to pay, I think, is that in the first place there must be adequate safeguards against rackets, and, in the second place, it is up to us to ensure that the criteria which the professional men apply are legitimate professional criteria. If they start being legislators or young sociologists or crusaders, then they are acting outside the ordinary ambit of professional judgment.

If we are going to allow, as it is proposed to allow, and with advantage proposed to allow, the professional judgment of two medical practitioners to take the place of the theoretical possibility that a single medical practitioner or more than one will have to run the gauntlet of a jury, we must allow some safeguard against abuse and racketeering and must ensure that the criteria they apply are legitimate professional criteria of the type that their qualifications and training enable them to apply.

I think that the omission of the word "well-being" at the appropriate points will have the effect, at any rate, of satisfying the second of the two criteria that I have been talking about. I have already spoken of the first and I will not go back over that. The difficulty then arises that one has to look at subsection (1) as amended and subsection (2) to see if the question of environment does not go too wide. I think this is a very difficult question to decide; but rather hesitantly I have come to the conclusion that it does not go too wide. I am quite sure that whether one is a lawyer advising a client or a doctor advising a patient one does in practice take into account his or her total environment in giving advice.

I cannot conceive of a responsible professional man coming to a client or a patient and not taking into account the total situation, although one may apply in the end what is a professional criterion. Even without the words relating to environment in the Bill, I would have expected a responsible doctor to apply them. My belief, and I have a wide and long experience from my own profession in judging the criteria which the medical profession applies in advising patients, is that they would do so even if those words were not there. I have been told, and I believe it to be the case, that some doctors not as familiar with law as they are with medicine are inhibited occasionally in this particular matter from applying what would otherwise be their professional judgment in the belief that lawyers would not allow them to do so in the last resort.

I believe that this is a mistake. If the addition of the words about environment and without the word "well-being", which I would regard as offensive, would ease the conscience of the medical practitioner in arriving at his advice, I would be happy to see them continued in the Bill even though I am doubtful about the addition of the words relating to the other children. I believe that a professional man, whoever he may be, when advising his client or patient, has merely to take into account the total situation as it is—the patient's or client's personality and circumstances in life—even though, when he comes to recognise what the criterion is applying to that total environment, he chooses a rigid professional criterion.

My conclusion, although I have arrived at it rather longer than I had intended and by a different route, is similar to that of the Home Secretary's in this group of Amendments. I thought he was unjust to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). It seems to me to be proper that the rather painful details of this operation, of which I shall not speak, should be before the House or in the background of the consciences of hon. Members when they arrive at a conclusion about this important matter. Sometimes we are apt to sweep under the carpet what we do not like to face. I have faced these considerations and I think that the answer lies in this group of Amendments. I had intended to say it later, but in view of the course which the discussion has taken, I hope it is not inappropriate to say it now.

Mr. Simon Mahon

Unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), and as I have pointed out in Committee so frequently, I am neither priest, lawyer, doctor, nor theologian. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), when I said this in Committee, said that I was in the happy position of having the best of all worlds. However, I feel rather inadequate following the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I would be loth to comment on his erudite advice to the House, except to say this. I recently attended a lecture at Liverpool University—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will speak to the Amendments.

Mr. Mahon

I am trying to speak to the Amendments, Mr. Speaker. I am coming very quickly to this one point, if I may be allowed to do so. Gynaecologists and others do not often induce abortions because, it is said, they fear the legal consequences. But nobody has ever produced a single gynaecologist to whom this has happened.

Having said that, I want to discuss the Amendments. As I have said, I do not belong to the professional classes and the legal points in these provisions sometimes tie me up, but I do know a great deal about well-being and the well-being of family life. I also know a lot about the total environment of family life. The Home Secretary, I thought wrongly, sought to correct the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). When she was dealing with well-being, with the total environment and with the difficulties of this very grave operation, I thought that to call her obsessive was not quite proper for a man in the Home Secretary's position. I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment, but no doubt my remarks will be conveyed to him—conveyed in all charity; but he should show the same charity to others in the House. I thought it was proper that an hon. Lady particularly should offer advice on this dreadful operation. We have got to make an adjudication on whether the risks of the operation are less or greater than the effect on well-being or total environment. This the dilemma that members of the Committee were in.

When we are talking about family life, well-being, abortion and getting rid of children, as we are in these Amendments, I wish to say that there are two Members of this House who, if the criteria enunciated here had appertained, would not be on this earth. They would not have been born at all. The environment in which my parents existed was such that when they were bringing 10 children into the world, if the criteria which are being advocated tonight had been applied, we would not have lived in this country and some of my brothers would never have died for this country. Often people have a picture in their minds of an ideal family or a comfortable family. It is easy to imagine a comfortable, well-run, healthy family. 13ut life is not like that.

1.30 a.m.

We have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) tonight, and I am sure that he will be as interested in hearing what I have to say as I was interested in listening to him speaking about social conditions in Glasgow. We from Merseyside take second place to nobody in that regard. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend speak about Glasgow.

When we talk about the well-being of of families, I should like to quote what was said by Professor Donald, of Glasgow, a gynaecologist who is, I believe, eminent in his profession. This was what he said about this aspect of well-being and people terminating pregnancies because of the social conditions of which my hon. Friend spoke as part of well-being and part of the total environment: The object of this Bill, when all is said and done, is that there should be more abortions performed. Its intentions are apparently humane, but most of those women who appear harassed and disturbed by the social conditions in the early stages of their pregnancy and by the pregnancy itself, obviously come to terms with it later. After the birth of their child, the baby is precious to them. This man speaks with knowledge of Glasgow. I am sure that hon. Members from Scotland will note this.

He said: I understand that one pregnancy in 50 is terminated in Aberdeen. I should imagine that the social conditions in Aberdeen—any Scottish Member on either side, can correct me—are not as foul or as difficult as those which appertain in Glasgow. The professor says that I understand that one pregnancy in 50 is terminated in Aberdeen. Why? He then gives another figure and says that Here in Glasgow, out of 7,500 pregnancies, we have terminated two. No woman has died through a failure to terminate pregnancy, none has gone mad and none has committed suicide. To my mind these facts speak for themselves. Obviously, there are grave difficulties. I have with me figures which I have amassed during the proceedings on the Bill of the position that we had to tackle, with the highest maternal mortality rate in the whole country. But the highest maternal rate in the whole country was given to me when I came out of the war back to local government and I was told to get on with it.

I was also told by the medical officer of health—and this relates to well-being and total environment—that in the town which I was representing we had the highest infant mortality rate, the highest incidence of tuberculosis, the highest birth rate and the lowest death rate. That was what we had to tackle.

I say this honestly to the House, as we all try to be honest. I am trying to be honest about this. I believe that the intention of the people who sponsor the Bill goes far beyond the reading of the words—

Mr. Speaker

Order. May I point out to the hon. Member that we are not discussing the Bill? We are discussing a group of Amendments.

Mr. Mahon

I thank you for your intervention, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad to be brought back into order. I am trying to talk about well-being and the total environment, which are covered by the Amendments. It may be that I deviated a little in trying to give an example of well-being when I spoke about those terrible figures, but they are part of the total environment in which people live. Therefore, they are part of the total environment of the people whom I represent in the House of Commons, and the people whom I represent in this House will be affected by the Bill.

Had we resorted to abortion for social reasons—I say this after a great deal of deliberation—and had our minds been conditioned by an easy way out of our social dilemma for these families who were being affected, we would not have worked so diligently in providing the houses and the social services and everything else which results from having the highest infant mortality rate in the country. The 1965 percentage in Bootle, which has some of the worst social conditions in the country, was 19.42, compared with a national average of 19.0—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I can understand the hon. Gentleman being proud of his borough—all hon. Members are proud of their constituencies—but he must come to the Amendments.

Mr. Mahon

I find it difficult to understand references to the total environment and well-being of the citizens of this country—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are discussing not the total environment or well-being of the citizens of this country but a group of Amendments. The fact that they include certain words does not widen the debate as far as the hon. Gentleman is taking it.

Mr. Mahon

I do not want to have a difference of opinion with the Chair. I was trying to talk about the risk to a pregnant woman's physical and mental health and future well-being, and that of her children or future children. Doctors must adjudicate on the words "total environment" which appear in Amendment No. 15.

I have no intention of filibustering [An HON. MEMBER: Oh, no."] Everything was thrown at me in Committee, from filibustering to my Catholic religion, and I will take all that and more, but it is a sad thing when Members of my own party behave as they have done tonight to a man of my reputation in the Labour Party. But they will not keep me quiet. It was our record over things like environment and well-being and the dignity of family life which made us a Government: it was not fantasy policies—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I hope that hon. Members will listen quietly to arguments which are sincerely held, but I must ask the hon. Gentleman to come to the Amendments. We are discussing not environment and well-being in general, but their relation to certain Amendments.

Sir John Hobson (Warwick and Leamington)

On a point of order. Amendment No. 15 proposes to leave out subsection (2), in which the factors which will determine well-being include total environment. Could you, Mr. Speaker, enlighten us on the limits of the debate?

Mr. Speaker

I am not questioning the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assessment—I have read the Amendments—nor am I questioning that we should discuss whether these words should be in or out, but we cannot discuss environment or well-being in general. This is what the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) is doing.

Mr. Mahon

When speaking about a family's total environment and a woman faced with the dreadful choice of an abortion, it is difficult not to stray into these generalisations, Mr. Speaker, and I am grateful to you for letting me go so far.

Before I sit down, I must say that I take the strongest possible objection to the treatment which I have received from hon. Members throughout the Bill's passage.

Mr. Hugh Fraser (Stafford and Stone)

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) thought that if "or well-being" were deleted we should be left with a fairly precise definition for a professional man— the patient's total environment actual or reasonably foreseeable". I very much question that view.

Mr. Hogg

I did not quite say that. I said that a professional man has to apply precise professional criteria but that in advising a patient he must take into account the man or woman as he or she is in the environment in which he or she actually exists, otherwise it is not responsible advice. The criteria must be precise but the advice must pay some regard to the actual situation.

Mr. Fraser

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend when he puts it that way, but it is the ordinary precept for commonsense. One considers general factors when making up one's mind. But we move into a different sphere 'when it is spelled out as in the subsection, using a somewhat mystical phrase. When we talk of "reasonably foreseeable", we must ask hon. Members to examine their consciences to see how they have misled the country in what they thought was "reasonably foreseeable". Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister would give us an example of what they consider to be "reasonably foreseeable".

Mr. Speaker

Order. I know the temptation, but the right hon. Member must not fall into it.

Mr. Fraser

My temptations are "reasonably foreseeable".

The phrase goes very wide. The Home Secretary said that it seemed to strike a balance between the improvement of the law and the creation of abortion on demand, but the more I look at this vague phraseology, which is capable of every sort of interpretation, the nearer it seems to approach the position which the sponsor of the Bill says he wants to avoid. I hope that he will seriously consider the deletion of the paragraph, which goes far beyond the bounds expressed so wisely by my right hon. and learned Friend as the normal precept of common sense. As spelled out, this is a dangerous concept. The paragraph should be removed.

Sir S. Summers

I hope that it will not be an intrusion if a Member who did not sit through the Committee stage and who has not so far taken part in Report intervenes for a few minutes. I wish to protest that the Home Secretary, who saw fit to intervene early in this debate and to start by rebuking my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) for her speech, has not even had the courtesy to remain to hear the comments about his speech.

He addressed his mind to a whole series of Amendments, some of which are being discussed and some of which are not being discussed. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that the cumulative effect of accepting a number of Amendments would be to meet many of the objections of those who feared the consequences of the Bill as drafted. He felt sure that moderate opinion could be confident in the operation of the Measure if certain changes were made.

1.45 a.m.

I am not satisfied that, even if the Bill were changed in that way, satisfactory results would be produced. We have already discussed the question of risk and it is now to be completely unqualified. Indeed, if there is any risk at all, that will be a legitimate reason for an abortion. We are told that the reference to wellbeing is to be deleted. These are important factors, but I will not go into them now.

An important aspect is the reference to the other children of the mother concerned. The sponsor of the Bill would prefer the phrase … any existing children of her family …. Having spent some time studying the Bill from the point of view that it is not satisfactory to rely on past judgments and that the law should be clarified, I would go so far as to agree that there should be somewhat greater flexibility than has been possible under the present law. However, to go beyond that and to say that not only should the effect of an abortion on the mother be taken into account in certain ways, but that, in addition, the effect on her existing children should be regarded as a proper criterion by which to judge the legality of the abortion is, I suggest, going very much further than any moderate opinion is prepared to go at present.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the House has refused to give permission for Amendment No. 56 to be discussed within the group of Amendments now being considered.

Sir S. Summers

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am referring to Amendment No. 10, which would have the effect of leaving out any reference to children.

Mr. Speaker

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He is right and I am wrong. There are two Amendments dealing with the matter he raises.

Sir S. Summers

If Amendment No. 10 were carried, all references to children would be deleted when deciding the criteria that is to be applied. I support that because it would be wrong that an increased number of abortions should result from a consideration of that kind. And if the reference to well-being is to be deleted, this subjection will be slightly less objectionable than it is at present. I was particularly interested in the sincere comments of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) with regard to Clause 1(1,a) and the use of the phrase "reasonably foreseeable". It may be said that it is only to be taken into account, but I cannot help thinking that those who put the wording on the Notice

Paper and who wish to preserve subparagraph (ii) would regard it as a far more important criteria to be called in aid than merely to be taken into account would seem at first sight. Though there has undoubtedly been an attempt to attract moderate opinion, I do not think that it has as yet succeeded.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. C. Pannell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 84.

Division No. 407.]	AYES	[1.51 a.m.
Albu, Austen	Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Oram, Albert E.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Gregory, Arnold	Orme, Stanley
Allen, Scholefield	Gresham Cooke, R.	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Archer, Peter	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)	Palmer, Arthur
Armstrong, Ernest	Hamling, William	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Haseldine, Norman	Pardoe, John
Bacon, Rt, Hn. Alice	Heseltine, Michael	Park, Trevor
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Barnes, Michael	Hooley, Frank	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Barnett, Joel	Hornby, Richard	Pavitt, Laurence
Beaney, Alan	Horner, John	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Bidwell, Sydney	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Price, William (Rugby)
Bishop, E. S.	Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Howie, W.	Rees, Merlyn
Booth, Albert	Huckfield, L,	Reynolds, G. W.
Bossom, Sir Clive	Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Richard, Ivor
Boyle, Rt. Hn. sir Edward	Hunt, John	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Brooks, Edwin	Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)	Robinson,Rt.Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Brown,Bob(N 'c'tle-upon.Tyne, W.)	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow. E.)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Cant, R. B.	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Ryan, John
Carlisle, Mark	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Coe, Denis	Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn (W.Ham,s.)	Sheldon, Robert
Concannon, J. D.	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Judd, Frank	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Crawshaw, Richard	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Lestor, Miss Joan	Snow, Julian
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire,W.)	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Spriggs, Leslie
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Lipton, Marcus	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Dell, Edmund	Loughlin, Charles	Stonehouse, John
Dewar, Donald	Luard, Evan	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Lubbock, Eric	Swingler, Stephen
Dobson, Ray	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Taverne, Dick
Dunnett, Jack	MacColl, James	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	MacDermot, Niall	Urwin, T. W.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	Vickers, Dame Joan
Ellis, John	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Ensor, David	Mayhew, Christopher	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)	Mendelson, J. J.	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Faulds, Andrew	Mikardo, Ian	Weitzman, David
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Millan, Bruce	Wellbeloved, James
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Molloy, William	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Moonman, Eric	Winnick, David
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Forrester, John	Moyle, Roland	Yates, Victor
Fowler, Gerry	Murray, Albert
Fraser, John (Norwood)	Newens, Stan	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Freeson, Reginald	Noel-Baker. Francis (Swindon)	Sir George Sinclair and
Gilrnour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Norwood, Christopher	Mr. Edward Lyons.
Goodhart, Philip	Ogden, Eric
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Oakes, Gordon
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Onslow, Cranley
Alldritt, Walter	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Oswald, Thomas
Baker, W. H. K.	Hirst, Geoffrey	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Biggs-Davison, John	Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Percival, Ian
Black, Sir Cyril	Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Braine, Bernard	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Jennings, J. C. (Burton)	Sharpies, Richard
Channon, H. P. G.	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Small, William
Chichester-Clark, R,	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Summers, Sir Spencer
Clegg, Walter	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Cooke, Robert	Kerr, Mrs, Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Tinn, James
Corfield, F. V.	Kitson, Timothy	Wall, Patrick
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Ward, Dame Irene
Cunningham, Sir Knox	Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)	Weatherill, Bernard
Dalkeith, Earl of	McBride, Neil	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Dance, James	Macdonaid, A. H.	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Maclennan, Robert	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Delargy, Hugh	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Wilis, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Dempsey, James	McNamara, J. Kevin	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Dunn, James A.	Maddan, Martin	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
English, Michael	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Wright, Esmond
Foster, Sir John	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	Marten, Neil	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Galpern, Sir Myer	Maude, Angus	Mr. R. Grant-Ferris and
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Monro, Hector	Mr. Victor Goodhew.
Glover, Sir Douglas	Montgomery, Fergus
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Murton, Oscar

Question put accordingly, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 66.

Division No. 408.]	AYES	[2.02 a.m.
Albu, Austen	Ensor, David	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Allen, Schulefield	Faulds, Andrew	Lestor, Miss Joan
Archer, Peter	Fernyhough, E.	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Armstrong, Ernest	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Lipton, Marcus
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Loughlin, Charles
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Luard, Evan
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Lubbock, Eric
Barnes, Michael	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Harnett, Joel	Forrester, John	MacColl, James
Beaney, Alan	Foster, Sir John	MacDermot, Niall
Bidwell, Sydney	Fowler, Gerry	Maclennan, Robert
Bishop, E. S.	Freeson, Reginald	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Booth, Albert	Goodhart, Philip	Mayhew, Christopher
Bossom, Sir Clive	Cordon-Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Mendelson, J. J.
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Gregory, Arnold	Mikardo, Ian
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Gresham Cooke, R.	Millan, Bruce
Brooks, Edwin	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Hamling, William	Molloy, William
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Haseldine, Norman	Moonman, Eric
Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Heseltine, Michael	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Cant, R. B.	Hill, J. E. B.	Moyle, Roland
Carlisle, Mark	Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)	Murray, Albert
Channon, H. P. G.	Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Newens, Stan
Coe, Denis	Hooley, Frank	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Concannon, J. D.	Hornby, Richard	Norwood, Christopher
Cooke, Robert	Horner, John	Ogden, Eric
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Oram, Albert E.
Crawshaw, Richard	Howarth, Harry (Wellngborough)	Orme, Stanley
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Howie, W.	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Huckfield, L.	Palmer, Arthur
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Hunt, John	Pardoe, John
Dell, Edmund	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Park, Trevor
Dewar, Donald	Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Dobson, Ray	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Pavitt, Laurence
Dunnett, Jack	Jenkins, Rt, Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Price, William (Rugby)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Rees, Merlyn
Ellis, John	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Reynolds, G. W.
English, Michael	Judd, Frank	Richard, Ivor
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas	Snow, Julian	Weitzman, David
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)	Spriggs, Leslie	Wellbeloved, James
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)	Steel, David (Roxburgh)	Williams, Alan Lee(Hornchurch)
Robinson, W, O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)	Stonehouse, John	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Roland, Christopher (Merlden)	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Ryan, John	Swingler, Stephen	Winnick, David
Sharpies, Richard	Taverne, Dick	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret	Yates, Victor
Sheldon, Robert	Urwin, T. W.
Shore, Peter (Stepney)	Vickers, Dame Joan	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)	Sir George Sinclair and
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)	Walden, Brian (All Saints)	Mr. Edward Lyons.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Oakes, Gordon
Alldritt, Walter	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Onslow, Cranley
Baker, W. H. K.	Hirst, Geoffrey	Oswald, Thomas
Biggs-Davison, John	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Black, Sir Cyril	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Braine, Bernard	Jennings, J. C. (Burton)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Clegg, Walter	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Small, William
Corfield, F. v.	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Kitson, Timothy	Tinn, James
Cunningham, Sir Knox	Knight, Mrs. Jill	wall, Patrick
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)	Ward, Dame Irene
Dance, James	McBride, Neil	Weatherill, Bernard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	McGuire, Michael	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Deedes, Rf. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Delargy, Hugh	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Dempsey, James	McNamara, J. Kevin	Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Dunn, James A.	Maddan, Martin	Wright, Esmond
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Galpern, Sir Myer	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Marten, Neil	Mr. R. Grant-Ferris and
Glover, Sir Douglas	Monro, Hector	Mr. Victor Goodhew.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Montgomery, Fergus
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Murton, Oscar

Amendment proposed: No. 10, in page 1, line 12, leave out from 'woman' to end of line 13.—[Mr. English.]

Division No. 409.]	AYES	[2.14 a.m.
Albu, Austen	Digby, Simon Wingfield	Horner, John
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Dobson, Ray	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Allen, Scholefield	Dunnett, Jack	Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Archer, Peter	Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Howie, W.
Armstrong, Ernest	Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Huckfield, L.
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Bacon, Rt. Hn, Alice	Ellis, John	Hunt, John
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Ensor, David	Jackson, Peter M. (H'gh Peak)
Barnes, Michael	Evans, Gwynfor (c'marthen)	Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)
Barnett, Joel	Faulds, Andrew	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Beaney, Alan	Fernyhough, E.	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Bidwell, Sydney	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hu'l, W.)
Bishop, E. S.	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Flwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Blenkkisop, Arthur	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondds, West)
Booth, Albert	Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Judd, Frank
Bossom, Sir Clive	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Forrester, John	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Foster, Sir John	Lestor, Miss Joan
Brooks, Edwin	Fowler, Gerry	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tlc-upon-Tyne, W.)	Fraser, John (Norwood)	Lipton, Marcus
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Freeson, Reginald	Loughlin, Charles
Cant, R. B.	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Luard, Evan
Carlisle, Mark	Goodhart, Philip	Lubbock, Eric
Channon, H. P. G.	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Coe, Denis	Gregory, Arnold	MacColl, James
Concannon, J. D.	Gresham Cooke, R.	MacDermot, Niall
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Maclennan, Robert
Crawshaw, Richard	Hamling, William	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Crostand, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Haseldine, Norman	Mayhew, Christopher
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Heseltine, Michael	Mendelson, J. J.
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Hill, J. E. B.	Mikardo, Ian
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Hobden, Dennia (Brighton, K'town)	Millan, Bruce
Dell, Edmund	Hooley, Frank	Molloy, William
Dewar, Donald	Hornby, Richard	Moonman, Eric

Question put, That 'or' stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Aves 156, Noes 82.

Morgan Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Rees, Merlyn	Swingler, Stephen
Moyle, Roland	Reynolds, G. W.	Taverne, Dick
Murray, Albert	Richard, Ivor	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Newens, Stan	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas	Urwin, T. W.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)	Vickers, Dame Joan
Norwood, Christopher	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Ogden, Eric	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Oram, Albert E.	Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Orme, Stanley	Ryan, John	Weitzman, David
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Palmer, Arthur	Sheldon, Robert	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	Shore, Peter (Stepney)	Winnick, David
Pardoe, John	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Park, Trevor	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)	Yates, Victor
Parker, John (Dagenham)	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)	Snow, Julian	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Pavitt, Laurence	Spriggs, Leslie	Sir George Sinclair and
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)	Steel, David (Roxburgh)	Mr. Edward Lyons.
Price, William (Rugby)	Stonehouse, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Harvie, Anderson, Miss	Montgomery, Fergus
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Murton, Oscar
Alldritt, Walter	Hirst, Geoffrey	Oakes, Gordon
Baker, W. H. K.	Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Onslow, Cranley
Biggs-Davison, John	Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Oswald, Thomas
Black, Sir Cyril	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Braine, Bernard	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Percival, Ian
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Jennings, J. C. (Burton)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Chichester Clark, R.	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Cooke, Robert	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Small, William
Corfield, F. v.	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Summers, Sir Spencer
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Cunningham, Sir Knox	Kitson, Timothy	Tinn, James
Dalkeith, Earl of	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Wall, Patrick
Dance, James	Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)	Ward, Dame Irene
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	McBride, Neil	Weatherill, Bernard
Delargy, Hugh	Macdonald, A. H.	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Dempsey, James	McGuire, Michael	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Dunn, James A.	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
English, Michael	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Fortescue, Tim	McNamara, J. Kevin	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	Maddan, Martin	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Galpern, Sir Myer	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Wright, Esmond
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Mahon Simon (Bootle)
Glover, Sir Douglas	Marten, Neil	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Maude, Angus	Mr. R. Grant-Ferris and
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Mr. Victor Goodhew.
Harris, Reader (Heston)	Monro, Hector

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw to your attention the fact that the figures in the last Division were 156 for the Ayes and 82 for the Noes. It took twice as long to count the 82 Noes as It did the 156 Ayes. In view of that, I make the charge and allegation of deliberate procrastination on the part of those going through the Division Lobby as a means of trying to filibuster and delay. May I ask you to be good enough, if that is the case, and the evidence proves it, to pass some opinion, saying perhaps that in your opinion it is rather disorderly or unparliamentary or something that you might deprecate?

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful if you would advise me of anything in Standing Orders which lays down a specific time for counting in a Division.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that the supplementary point of order adds anything to the original one. I have no means of regulating the pace at which hon. Members pass through the Lobby or the mathematical speed at which Tellers count the votes.

The only Ruling that I can remind the House about, and that I must remind the House about, will be found on page 470 of Erskine May: action in a division lobby which obstructs the proceedings of the House, such as the indefinite prolongation of a division by the refusal of certain Members to pass the tellers, has been punished under S.O. No. 24 by naming, after the Chairman had directed the Serjeant to ascertain the names of the Members concerned. We come now to Amendment No. 56. Mr. Steel.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could we have an interpretation under Standing Orders of "indefinite"?

Mr. Speaker

That will have to be decided by Mr. Speaker when the indefinite occasion happens.

Sir J. Hobson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), sitting in the Gangway opposite, pointed at me, I think—

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

indicated dissent.

Sir J. Hobson

If the hon. Gentleman was not making an accusation against me, I will not proceed.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) may have been making an accusation against me.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is not a place where hon. Gentlemen should be hypersensitive.

Mr. David Steel

I beg to move, Amendment No. 56, in page 1, line 12, to leave out from 'or' to the end of line 13 and to insert: 'any existing children of her family, and'. Perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, I ought to have pursued my argument about this, but I do not have the skill of other hon. Members in skating round the rules of order, and so I will continue what I was saying on Amendment No. 55 to deal with this Amendment No. 56. I very much welcome the speeches which were made from both Front Benches earlier. They seemed to endorse the view which the sponsors of the Bill had taken about the final form of Clause 1. I should like to tell the House in a little more detail why we have arrived at this decision.

We were advised that the word "well-being" was not capable of very precise legal definition and that, indeed, in one case in the courts the word "well-being", in a quite different context, had been defined in a judgment as "a state of complete happiness". If that interpreta- tion were to be placed on the word "well-being" it could lead to a situation where no prosecution could ever possibly be brought under the Bill against a medical practitioner.

The second point is the one referred to by the Home Secretary, that the reference to "well-being … of the child" seemed a little absurd. I should tell the House that this reference came from a very distinguished source, a memorandum of the Committee of the Law Society and the British Academy of Forensic Science, but despite that distinguished source it was, nevertheless, on examination decided that the reference to the "future well-being" and to "the child" should both be taken out of the Bill.

I do not agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), who seemed to think this makes some dramatic and tremendous difference to the substance of the Bill. In my submission, and in the view of the sponsors, it does not. We are dealing here with the drafting of the Bill.

I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that the word "health" itself has been defined, in the constitution of the World Health Organisation, in this manner: The state of complete mental, physical and social well being, and not merely an absence of disease or infirmity. In other words, health is considered to include the concept of well being. It is also the case that the reference to social factors is adequately catered for in Clause 1(1,a,ii), on which there has already been some discussion, and that is the reference to taking into account the "total environment".

That sub-paragraph, which has been criticised by some hon. Members, has been suggested to the sponsors from a very distinguished source indeed. The first suggestion for such a provision was in a report published by the Board for Moral Welfare of the Church of England. The inclusion of the sub-paragraph was also suggested to us in the course of our long deliberations by the leaders of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the British Medical Association. So there is no question at all but that the sub-paragraph, which has been criticised by some hon. Members, has been very carefully considered, and it has been introduced on very good authority indeed.

We have decided to retain the reference to "any existing children of her family". Here I would answer a point which the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) raises from time to time, that by having the word "or" we are somehow creating further grounds for abortion. This is not so. If we were to change the conjunction to "and" the legal requirement would be on the medical practitioner to consider the health not just of the woman but also of the children, and all that we are saying, by putting in "or"—"or" any other children in the family—is that the health of the other children and the welfare of the other children is very often a factor in a case on which he has to reach a decision.

I give the example of a case which we discussed with the leaders of the medical profession when we met them to see whether they agreed that this was the sort of case which would be considered by such a drafting of the Bill. It was the case of a family with four children. Both parents had a previous history of being charged with cruelty and neglect of their family. The husband had been in prison from time to time.

Through the skill of social workers, the family had been brought back together as a viable, working and happy unit. But then the wife found herself pregnant and the view of the social workers was that one more child in the family would bring to the ground again the whole of the social welfare they had built up in the family. It could not be said that the decision to terminate in that case rested solely on consideration of the health of the pregnant woman and nothing else. In fact, consideration of the welfare of the family as a whole was essential in the medical judgment.

Sir M. Galpern rose—

Mr. Steel

No. I have listened at great length to the hon. Gentleman's speeches.

Mr. St. John-Stevas rose—

Mr. Steel

It was agreed by the leaders of the medical profession that such a definition was necessary. It was pointed out that in statute law legislation there is the constant danger of limiting and narrowing existing case law. This danger has been present throughout the proceedings on the Bill.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Steel

No. I am not giving way.

I hope that the House will agree to the Amendment. It results in a highly satisfactory definition and meets the criticism constantly made in Committee that the sponsors have approached this matter in some sense in a rigid and inflexible manner. I believe that, with this Amendment, we are honouring our undertaking in Committee to look closely at the drafting. Having considered the matter very closely and having taken advice, we recommend this Amendment to the House.

Sir M. Galpern

The hon. Gentleman referred to a case where the significant factor was that it was the social workers who reported adversely on the social conditions of the family—or, if they did not report adversely, then they were primarily responsible for influencing the medical men concerned in their decision to abort or not.

Can we have an assurance that, in every such case where environmental conditions, or the well-being of the children or the future of other children is involved, it will not be left exclusively to two young registered medical practitioners to decide but that they will be compelled by law to call in all the expert social evidence to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded?

Mr. Patrick Jenkin (Wanstead and Woodford)

I have taken no part in the debates on the Bill so far, partly because of other preoccupations and partly because I did not consider myself qualified, because of my lack of study, to intervene. But this, for me, is the nub as to whether I support the Bill on Third Reading or not. It may be said that, in a sense, it was on the last Amendment we voted on that there was really the only opportunity for voting on the social clause in such a way as to leave in the criterion which would operate—namely, the health of the mother.

I supported the Bill generally on Second Reading because I believed, along with many other hon. and right hon. Members, that the law required clarification and it was necessary to import into the law the requirement that medical practitioners should take account of the total social environment in determining whether the health of the mother would suffer if the pregnancy were allowed to run its full term. Once one departs from the health of the mother as being the criterion for determining whether the pregnancy should be ended, it seems to me that at that point certainty departs and it no longer becomes a matter upon which medical practitioners can properly use their judgment.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has gone some way to meet the objections of the many people, both inside and outside the House, who have felt that the door was being opened much too wide by either the original words of the Bill or the words which were introduced in Committee. By removing the reference to "well-being" and the reference to the child itself, he has considerably narrowed the scope of the Bill. However, I must say to all those who are anxious to see this Bill on the Statute Book that I for one will find it extremely difficult to support it on Third Reading if this reference to the other children remains in.

I see the force of the circumstances of the individual case which the hon. Member has described to the House where clearly the other children are relevant and do become a consideration. But the question which we have to decide is whether this is a sufficient consideration to justify the ending of the pregnancy, or, in other words, whether it is a consideration which ought to be open to doctors and people concerned to allow them to procure an abortion without running the risk of a criminal prosecution. I am bound to say that I do not think it is. There may be cases where social workers would say, "I wish that this child might not be born because I think the family would have a better hope of standing together." I do not believe that this is a judgment which medical men can or ought to be asked to make. It is not a duty which we should impose on them. I believe that the Bill would achieve most of the purpose of the promoters and would gain very wide acceptance throughout the country if it were passed without these words in it.

As I understand there can in fact be two votes on this Amendment, one to leave out the words and one that the extra words should be added, I hope that hon. and right hon. Members who have hitherto supported the Bill may feel it right to vote to leave out the words proposed to be left out in the Amendment but not support the addition of the extra words.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

On a point of order. Is it true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) has said, that it will be possible to have two votes on Amendment 56?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It is perfectly correct. The first question will be for the House to decide whether the words proposed to be left out should stand part. Then there will be a second vote whether the other words should be inserted.

Mr. Deedes

I share the view which has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), but that is not the principal point to which I want to address myself. The Amendment has been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) as seeking to remove the final flaw. I think we all accept that this is a very important proposal which we have to consider. The point to which I think it is fair to refer will not be within the knowledge of hon. Members who were not on the Standing Committee. To my knowledge this is the seventh or eighth attempt to get this crucial part of the Bill into a form acceptable to hon. Members of this House. This consideration gives me considerable misgivings. Indeed, it is now my main source of disquiet.

2.45 a.m.

The Home Secretary, when he referred earlier to the paving Amendments to this principal Amendment, said, I think fairly, that this was now a good deal more acceptable to moderate opinion. He felt that a reasonable balance had been reached. I do not think that is a view that many of us would be inclined to quarrel with. We appreciate the efforts that have been made to accommodate the views of those of us who stand on the middle ground with a view to making the Bill acceptable.

But on this Amendment a wider consideration arises. It is the consequence of having, not once or twice, but seven or eight times, altered the wording of the Bill to what we hope may be the final form. I would be more open to conviction that this was not only the final but the right form if I had not spent 12 sittings for upwards of 30 hours on all the preceding changes to this part of the Bill. Indeed, when we come to the second part of the Amendment, that is to say, the inclusion of the reference to existing children—we heard what my hon. Friend has just said about it and the misgivings that ethers will share—we must realise that although this may have been more acceptable to moderate opinion, it is by no means accepted by all as the last word.

I followed what the Home Secretary said about the Royal Commission and all the rest of it. I realise that no form of words will ever be devised which will be acceptable to all hon. Members. But what troubles me is whether, in seeking a form of words which is generally agreeable—that, I think we have got—we have, in fact, got a form of words which is soundly based. On this I have very strong reservations indeed.

I welcome the first part of the Amendment which leaves out the words to which many people object. I do not accept the proposed insertion, and I shall act accordingly. But it is at this stage that we should ask ourselves where we are getting to in the continual changing of the words at the crucial point of this Bill.

Sir D. Glover

I am sure that all hon. Members have listened with a great, deal of sympathy and interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) in his first contribution to the debate. I am in the same position, which is rather strange in a debate of this kind.

I do not think that we ought to give to the doctor the responsibility of deciding on the well-being of the child or the other children of the mother. I do not see how a doctor can take these matters into account any better than any other person can. I do not see how he can make an objective judgment. He is not necessarily a trained welfare worker. As soon as we get away from the question of a medical judgment, the field that we open up is so wide that we are getting down to abortion on demand.

I would like to bring the House back to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). I used this expression in another connotation. We are tonight debating two sets of lives. One set of lives—the mother—will be only too vocal and able to express and defend its interests and put pressure on Members of Parliament, but the unborn child, the other set of lives, will never be able to bring any pressure to bear. There is no lobby of the unborn child, because by its very nature it is unable to speak for itself.

I have no hesitation in saying that if I were a doctor I would put the interests of the mother before those of the child. I know that in saying this I probably speak against the views of many Roman Catholics, who think that the unborn child's life is even more valuable than that of the mother, because it is a life without sin and it is also—[Interruption.] I am told that that is not what Roman Catholics think; I hope not, because I think that the mother's life is far more important.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Chigwell)

It is not correct to say that Roman Catholics think that the life of the child is even more important. Not at all. Who are we to make any judgment?

Sir D. Glover

I am glad that the theologians on our side have been able to put me right on a point of fact or faith.

Once we begin to take in the question of the well-being of the remainder of the family, their environment and the other children, we come to something which is beyond anyone's ability to assess. An hon. Member said humorously a little earlier that the Government are always making mistakes in their assessment of future conditions, and that might apply even to Conservative Governments. I am not making a party point.

What are future conditions? How long do they last? What is the basis of squalor below which a doctor recommends that the pregnancy should be terminated? If the conditions are that much better, at what level does he recommend that it be not terminated? This is an entirely subjective judgment. For example, should there be abortions in Glasgow because conditions there are worse than those of Bootle? Are the conditions in Bootle that much better that children there should be allowed to live?

On what basis are doctors to make this judgment? On what basis do they have training to make the judgment? How does a doctor know that the conditions in the family and in the environment will not change dramatically for the better in a few weeks' or months' time? As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) said earlier, a family might be allocated a council house, with the result that its whole environment dramatically alters overnight.

The husband might have a substantial win on a football pool with the result that the whole financial environment of the family is altered. That might happen a week after his wife has been aborted. A week later, the husband might discover that his wife is now sterile and that their chance of having a family has gone. They might desperately want a child, but they are prevented from having one because of the decision taken by the doctor. The doctor might tell the woman that her conditions were very bad and ask whether he should terminate the pregnancy the woman, in her distress might agree, and then it would be done—

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

It is most unlikely that the doctor would make that suggestion.

3.0 a.m.

Sir D. Glover

That is not so, with respect. Neither my hon. Friend nor I can make a final decision, because neither of us can vet all the doctors, but a doctor with a panel in good environmental conditions would probably have to make this decision rarely, whereas another, looking after an area of bad conditions, would be under great pressure to do so—

Mr. Cooke

My hon. Friend said that the doctor would make the suggestion to the mother and he is now shifting his ground.

Sir D. Glover

I am not. A doctor with a panel in a bad environment would be only too likely to suggest abortion as being in the woman's interests. He would be expected to, on medical grounds—

Mr. Dance

Six weeks or a month after abortion on those grounds, might not a man be posted from a congested town to another job which would enable him to get a reasonable house?

Sir D. Glover

I thank my hon. Friend. This is exactly my point, that a doctor would objectively assess an environment which might change dramatically within days.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston had no need to apologise, and the Home Secretary's criticism was grossly arrogant and pompous. It is right in a debate like this that we who are not experts should be told brutally and frankly what happens when an abortion takes place. We would be wrong to decide this matter without having heard her speech. It is easy to decide to abort a woman if there is no risk, but one is getting rid not of a piece of gristle but of a living organism. Many children, when aborted, are trying to breathe, even if only 13 weeks old. Do not hon. Members consider significant the unease and distaste expressed by the whole medical profession about legalising this process? It is against all their teaching. The doctor's whole teaching is that of saving life and under the Bill he is encouraged to destroy life. That is our dilemma as hon. Members. I would give him permission to do it if he were destroying one life in order to save another, but I am not prepared to give him permission to destroy a life just because it might be better for little Douglas who would have slightly better home conditions because there was one fewer mouth to feed. There are plenty of contraceptives, and the mother could have appreciated the situation before the event took place. I do not think that a baby of 13 weeks in the mother's womb should be destroyed because temporarily, or even permanently, that would be to the environmental advantage of the four children already living.

Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)

The hon. Member is straying from the terms of the Clause, as it would read if the Amendment were accepted. The governing words are risk of injury to the physical or mental health … of her other children. This meets the hon. Member's suggestion that it is merely a matter of environmental conditions. I see no reason why, when a Member intervenes, briefly, he should be met by a waving of arms by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). It is obvious that some hon. Members opposite do not want to hear another point of view and—

Mr. Hogg

On a point of order. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) had the attention of the House and that all the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) was seeking to do was to intervene in his speech. I submit that if the right hon. Gentleman is to get into an altercation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), we shall get hopelessly out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) was making an intervention and he may continue.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

On a point of order. Is it out of order to wave one's arms?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I hope so.

Sir D. Glover

I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's intervention was. With all his side kicks at my hon. Friends, I did not grasp its meaning. I apologise to him and will continue my speech. He waves his arms. If that is the way in which he treats me when I have courteously given way to him, then it will be a long time before anyone on this side of the House gives way to him again.

Mr. James A. Dunn (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

We all want to hear the arguments, both for and against. Not to pay attention when an hon. Member intervenes is not only discourteous but shows a lack of understanding of the problem. I am sure that my right hon. Friend's intervention would have been helpful to us. I should have appreciated being told the exact words of the Clause, as amended.

Sir D. Glover

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I will try to get back to my speech, which, as a result of interventions, is in tatters. When I refer to environment and physical well-being I include such things as accommodation, the amount of money on which the person concerned must live and other environ- mental considerations. But if these things are to be considered when a decision about an abortion is being made, they cannot be properly considered under the Bill as drafted.

A doctor is trained in a valuable and important skill, but he is not necessarily able to assess the environmental conditions in which people live—certainly not in the way the Bill requires him to assess them. Doctors are not, in this context, social workers and housing managers. In any case, one woman may be a good manager, able to run her household well on a small income, while another may be a bad manager, not able to run her household well on a larger income. Doctors should not be given this responsibility of assessing whether a woman should be aborted.

Certainly we must take steps to see that women at risk are not placed in jeopardy. Later we can go into the question of abnormality in children, a terrifyingly difficult problem, but while we are discussing the question of environment, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) must accept that the Bill is still not right. After all, this is the seventh or eighth time that this provision has been re-written. Is it right now? Perhaps the ninth try will be better. Or perhaps the seventh, or second, attempt was the right answer.

I have enormous admiration for the guts and courage of the hon. Gentleman in piloting this Measure through. I hope that, just because I am saying certain things about him and the Bill, he will not think that I do not have much respect and admiration for him. But he must accept that since so many attempts have been made to get this form of words right, there is no reason to think that the provision is now in its best form. I am therefore left in great doubt whether, even at this stage—and I do not accept what the Home Secretary said tonight; I thought that he was very arrogant to the House—as this Clause is the meat of the Bill, because there would be very little controversy over a Clause which just gave doctors the right to terminate pregnancy—

Mr. Biggs-Davison

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member, even though the hon. Member is an hon. Friend of mine, to read a newspaper?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

It has been laid down on a number of occasions that it is out of order to read newspapers in the Chamber.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was reading this evening's Evening Standard, page 18, which would seem to me to be relevant to the debate, and I was just refreshing my mind on the subject in case I should be fortunate enough to catch your eye in due course.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It is in order to refer to a newspaper for the purpose of quoting from it in a speech, but ostentatious reading of newspapers here is not in order.

Sir D. Glover

I hope that after getting all the information he can from that very useful newspaper, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) will be able to contribute to our debate by quoting from the article he has been reading. It will give us more information on the subject.

I am influenced by what my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said about our now dealing with a form of words for the seventh or eighth time, by the doubts expressed, and by the fact that the medical profession is pretty well divided, with gynaecologists very worried indeed about the implications of a great deal of the Bill.

This sort of Bill should not be passed into law in an emotional atmosphere, but only after cold, quiet consideration. I still think that we would be well advised, even now, to ask for a Royal Commission to consider the subject coolly. After all, we are dealing with something that has existed in its present state for a very long time. A Royal Commission could seriously—

Mrs. Knight

Is my hon. Friend aware that no fewer than 535,000 people, a large number of them of very great eminence in the medical and religious spheres, have already signed a petition asking for the Royal Commission that he is now suggesting?

Sir D. Glover

I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Quite honestly, I did not know.

I will be quite honest and say that although I was dubious about the Bill and had not intended to vote for it, I do not suppose that a week ago, until I knew that the Government were proposing to try to force the Bill through at 10 o'clock at night—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I must remind the hon. Member that we are discussing a rather narrow Amendment. We are not discussing the principle of the Bill, or the desirability of a Royal Commission.

Sir D. Glover

With the greatest respect, a Royal Commission would be considering the exact matter that we are arguing about now. Some of my hon. Friends think that I am trying to be funny, apparently, but I am quite serious about this. A Royal Commission to deal with the whole problem might produce something totally different from the Bill. In asking for the setting up of a Royal Commission, we say that, even now, at the seventh or eighth attempt, the sponsor of the Bill has not got the wording right, and that is a matter which a Royal Commission would have to consider. I think that that is in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall not pursue it any further.

3.15 a.m.

I think that I have said enough to indicate to the hon. Gentleman that I do not feel sufficiently certain that he has got the wording right and that, when the time comes for us to reach a decision on it. I shall have to show my uncertainty and fear about it by voting against it.

Mr. Grant-Ferris

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask for your guidance about the drafting of this Amendment? You will notice that it proposes to leave out from 'or' to the end of line 13 and to insert 'any existing children of her family, and'. I am rather perplexed to know the meaning of the word "and" at the end and to what it refers. At the end of the relevant subsection in the Bill there is a semicolon, which seems to be sufficient. Does the word "and" make grammatical sense? If not, ought we not to put the matter right here and now?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think that it makes grammatical sense. The syntax and grammar of the Clause would be quite intelligible if the Amendment were carried.

Sir Knox Cunningham

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the Amendment is only leaving out to the end of line 13. Is not that the point? May we have your guidance?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It seems to me to be quite clear. If the first Amendment is carried, all the words from "or" are left out, and the House must then decide if the other words are to be added. If they are added, they seem to make sense.

Mrs. Lena Jeger (Holborn and St. Pancras, South)

The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), with whom I agree on so many subjects, has tempted me to break my self-denying ordinance. Although I have fallen to temptation, I hope to do so briefly.

It must be borne in mind that there will be many doctors who will be greatly helped if the Amendment is written into the Bill. I want to share with the House the details of a case which has been brought to my attention and which has illustrated to me the vital necessity of getting the Bill amended in these terms.

It concerns a young woman with five children who found herself pregnant with a sixth. She was in a state of deep depression, having been deserted by her husband. Her own doctor thought that the pregnancy should be terminated. She was sent to see a psychiatrist, who decided on balance that under the law as it now stands, with all its uncertainties, he could not recommend termination because, in the words of his report, … she did not seem quite depressed enough. Knowing how these things work, I am forced to the cynical conclusion that this young woman had not been sufficiently well coached in what one should say to a psychiatrist in those circumstances. This honest young woman was put into a position in which the psychiatrist, being scrupulous and bearing in mind all the uncertainties of the present case law and statute law, felt unable quite to recommend an abortion.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson

What is wrong with having six children? I have seven.

Mrs. Jeger

There is nothing wrong in having seven children, but perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to give the House information about this case. This young woman had the sixth baby, by which time her mental depression had become so bad that, after a few desperate sad weeks, in a fit of complete despair she threw the baby which she had not wanted and could not bear having on to the floor and killed it. The result of that refusal to terminate was that that mother has been in Holloway, the baby is dead and the other children are in care.

It may be said that there should have been other means of support and perhaps the baby could have been adopted, but it could not be because the husband managed to lose himself and there has to be the consent of both husband and wife to adoption. Another complication is that the child was coloured and that is a disincentive to adoption. I do not want to give the name of this woman because she is trying very hard to come through this terrible, tormenting experience. The case has been reported in the local newspapers and I can give further information to any hon. Member who is genuinely interested.

In this House we are confronted with a terrible problem. We cannot always legislate with the most dramatic circumstances in mind. It may be thought that this is an unusual and isolated case, but any law passed by this House has to have application in extremis as well as to the more normal circumstances of everyday life. I should feel it heavily on my conscience if in any similar case in future a doctor confronted by a woman in these circumstances had to feel that the way in which the House had dealt with this Bill caused him to be unprotected under the law in dealing with a case where the well-being of the existing family—which was the overriding problem in this case as the woman felt that she could look after five children but a sixth was the end—and the doctor thought that he would be on a criminal charge.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

I explained a short time ago the difficulties I felt over this Amendment. I am at a loss to see how the case described by the hon. Lady would be helped by this Amendment. She said that the psychiatrist refused to sanction termination of pregnancy on the ground that he did not find the woman sufficiently depressed. Would the psychiatrist have been able to judge the health or well-being of the children a sufficient ground for justifying termination of the pregnancy?

Mrs. Jeger

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the hon. Member's intervention. In a way he has helped to explain this difficult case. The psychiatrist felt that he had to exclude from his consideration of the problem all the existing five children. It was because of the strain of trying to cope, unsupported by an errant husband, with the existing family that the conclusion was reached—[Interruption.] If the psychiatrist had been able to look at the whole family situation, including the wellbeing of the existing children, he might have come to a different conclusion.

Sir J. Hobson

What the hon. Lady is troubled about is dealt with in paragraph (a,ii). We are now discussing whether a doctor should be able to consider existing children and abort a woman about whom there is no problem.

Mrs. Jeger

We must look at the family as a whole. My approach to the Bill is based on concern for the family unit as a whole. It is a matter of opinion whether it matters that five other people go into care, granted that they are all right and well looked after. The opponents of the Bill have suggested in various ways, and with great sincerity, that considerations of the whole family circumstances are not relevant. There is nothing in the Bill which is compulsive on doctors. We merely want to make it possible. I see the Amendment as making it slightly more possible for all these points to be taken into account without a doctor feeling that there will be a criminal charge against him.

Mr. F. V. Corfield (Gloucestershire, South)

The hon. Lady has confused me a great deal. She seems to be speaking against the Amendment because, as I understand it, the Amendment is a paying Amendment to delete the word "well-being". The Clause will then read: injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family". In this context I cannot see that the Amendment will help the case which she has been explaining to the House. It does not seem to me to have any relation to the Amendment.

Mrs. Jeger

I am sorry the hon. Gentleman thinks it has nothing to do with the Amendment. It has much to go with it. Existing children are an absolutely essential part of the family. I am concerned about the future of the whole family. We want doctors and psychiatrists and anyone concerned with cases of this kind to know that they can, in making these difficult decisions, include in their thinking existing children of her family". It would do a great dis-service to all that hon. Members, with very varied points of view, are trying to achieve in the Bill if the Amendment were defeated, because I believe that it has at its basis concerned for the whole family.

3.30 a.m.

Sir S. Summers

I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady and have very great sympathy for the case she related to the House. The Amendment would not be of any real help in the case she described to us. The Amendment would permit the psychiatrist or the doctor to take account of the physical or mental health of the existing children of the family. From what the hon. Lady said, I do not think it could have been foreseen that the state of the mother, or the situation which would arise with the sixth child, would have justified the abortion on the ground of the effect on the health of the existing children. If the doctor thought that the addition of another child would have had such a bad effect on the health of the mother he could have justified an abortion without the Amendment.

I find myself in considerable difficulty in deciding what to do about the Amendment, because it has the virtue of eliminating the word "well-being" which many of us feel would be better left out of the Bill, because if it is not it may lead to considerations of a non-medical character but in the process of shipping overboard this part of the story—which we understand was done to placate moderate opinion—we have at the same time to swallow the additional justification for an abortion, namely, the effect on the health of the remaining children of the family, and for the reasons advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), I think it is a pity that the reform of the law of abortion should permit consideration of the effect on the remaining children.

Mr. Dunn

If this is deleted, as the Amendment suggests, the words "total environment" will cover the same situation.

Sir S. Summers

Those words are in the Bill in any case. I am objecting to the proposition that an abortion can be justified because of the effect on the health of the remaining children, and that in isolation. This could be construed as a justification, and I think that it should not be so construed.

Mention has been made of a very sad case, but I can visualise other cases in which it will be alleged that the family is not well enough off to support a sixth, seventh, or eighth child, and this in itself may be regarded as sufficient to justify an abortion because of the effect on the health of the children already there.

Mr. Dan Jones (Burnley)

Is that a reason on which a doctor could adjucate?

Sir S. Summers

It is a reason which will be in the Bill. If it is thought that by having, say, the eighth child, the health of the seven existing children will be prejudiced, it will be alleged that this justifies an abortion.

I have had many letters on this subject, as I expect other hon. Members have, and to show the lengths to which some people who support the Bill are prepared to go I propose to read to the House a letter signed by a man and his wife. They say: I hope you are going to support this Bill, because the population is much too large, and until contraceptives are sufficiently widely known and applied this will help to keep the population down. Really! If we are to have this kind of argument advanced, it seems that it is going beyond all common sense. I allude to this only to illustrate the dangers of bringing in the consideration of the size of the family or the effect on the existing children. If this consideration is brought in, I can see dangerous things flowing from it.

In the preceding Amendment which was lost, the idea of cutting out all consideration of the children was lost with it. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] That is how I understand it. If I am wrong in my assessment of the situation, I hope that one of my hon. Friends will correct me. Having lost the proposal that consideration of the other children should be eliminated, we are obliged to direct attention to their well-being. If that is not so, I hope that the matter will be made clear. My difficulty is that, if my objection to the existing children being considered is strong enough to move me to vote against the Amendment, and the vote against it succeeds, then, it seems to me, well-being will remain in the Bill, which I do not want. How, therefore, should I vote?

Mr. Dunn

I support the first part of the Amendment, the deletion of the word "well-being". The question of the legal construction of that term was raised in the Standing Committee, and we encountered some problems during our discussion then. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) agreed that the word would be withdrawn on Report, but he did not say that he would at the same time add the phrase, any existing children of her family". I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) did not have a full opportunity to develop the point which he was making, because I think that it would have been a valuable guide to others who have some doubt on the subject.

Mr. David Steel

The Bill as it stood when it emerged from the Committee included a reference to the well being of the other children. What we are proposing here is not only to remove "well-being" but to make clear that the reference to the other children is limited to the health of the other children. Therefore, the Amendment is not to add something which is not already there.

Mr. Dunn

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is quite right, and I acknowledge that I had misled the House. I apologise. I had the impression that the hon. Gentleman and those who supported him in Committee resisted to the last the deletion of the word "well-being", and my mind has, perhaps, been coloured by that resistance. I had overlooked that there was that reference to the other children.

I have not had opportunity to put Amendment No. 15 to the House, to leave out sub-paragraph (ii), though my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to it. It ties up with the Amendment now before us, and perhaps I may make my position clear on the question. I have no doubt about what I should do. I want no part of a Bill which extends the grounds for abortion further than those which are medical. I shall never support Amendments or Measures which widen the grounds to take into account social or economic considerations or the number in the family.

I am fortunate in my family, and I have never had to meet the challenge of my wife's life being in jeopardy as the result of a pregnancy. I do not know how I should answer that challenge if it were presented to me as an individual, in my family circumstances. On medical grounds, I might well be persuaded to accept the recommendations of those qualified to advise me. But I could never accept that an abortion should be performed for reasons of convenience. I cannot accept that for anybody else, and I cannot accept it for myself or for my family.

The amended subsection would refer to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or her existing children. It is difficult to accept that the physical health of the existing children would be impaired as a result of the pregnancy of the mother. I can accept—I have experienced it in my own family—that there is sometimes a certain amount of mental aberration when another addition to the family usurps the position of the existing youngest one and pushes it along the line. A good many of us have had this problem. I do not think that this could be accepted as good and sufficient grounds for abortion, and I am sure that the sponsor of the Bill did not intend this. But that could well be the interpretation of the Clause as it is proposed to be amended.

I am concerned that the Bill leaves so many questionse unanswered. There are so many phrases in it that are unqualified and that is why I had hoped that the House would accept Amendment No. 15, which would have deleted sub-paragraph (ii) of Clause 1(1,a), which I consider to be ill-defined.

It has been suggested that support should be given to the Amendment on the basis that "well-being" will be sufficiently narrowed. That is not really so, because, now that the House has decided that the sub-paragraph shall remain, all the eventualities of "well-being" are covered in the phrases "total environment" and "reasonably foreseeable". I am not sure what "reasonably foreseeable" means, because a clairvoyant would be needed.

Therefore, the sponsor is not giving way at all, and I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. Robert Cooke

Having sat here for nearly six hours, I might be tempted to develop my case at considerable length for fear of never getting the chance to speak again. But I shall resist the temptation because many of my hon. Friends wish to speak.

I want to give the House what I think is, to some extent, a new thought. I am against the Amendment because it perpetuates the reference to the other children. It seems to widen the ground for abortion from the present legal position to deal with the matter of family stresses and strains caused by the prospect of an additional child to an already fairly fruitful marriage.

I find it unacceptable that we should write this ground into the Bill and give encouragement to any practitioner or pregnant woman to go for an abortion on this ground, for the very good reason that it is better to let the no doubt perfectly developing child survive for life outside, as it were. Even if that child is not appreciated in the family to which it is a somewhat unwelcome addition, it should come into a world where it might well find a happy place with a married couple who have so far been childless.

The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) was, I believe, the first to mention the word "adoption". There are many childless couples who desperately desire a family but cannot have one, for various medical reasons, and would like to adopt a child. There are not enough children available for adoption. The hon. Lady mentioned the legal difficulties, but I shall not dwell on the subject as I might be considered to be out of order.

I am most concerned that purely on the ground of family stresses and strains—the problems of the over-large family we shall kill off a child who has developed perfectly up to the limit under the present law, which I believe to be 26 weeks, at which a pregnancy can be terminated.

3.45 a.m.

It is difficult to tell how long a pregnancy has gone on. I have personal knowledge of this. Our doctor at home assured my wife that she would have her first child on 10th April. It was then put off till 10th May, and it arrived three weeks after that—with a considerable struggle. From that experience it is obvious that a child in a very advanced stage might be the victim of the grisly operation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). I will not go into that, except to say that I appreciated her sincerity and thought she was right to tell the House about it. Many hon. Members are not really aware of the facts. Some would do well to look at the specimens in the Hunterian collection at the Royal College of Surgeons to see what it is they are prepared to kill off at a fairly advanced stage in its development.

I am sure that all hon. Members want to avoid abortion if at all possible and do not want to place the medical profession in the position of having to perform any more abortions than are absolutely necessary. Therefore, I cannot support the present move of the sponsor to widen the grounds so that an over-large family can be used as a ground for abortion. The child perhaps unwanted by its parents may be very much wanted by other people, and we should not kill it off in this somewhat arbitrary fashion.

I say all this as one who realises that there are imperfections in the present law. I hope that the abortion racketeers will be killed off by this Measure as it finally reaches the Statute Book. I say this as one not unconnected with the medical profession and not unconnected, for that matter, with the British Medical Association.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

I want to deal briefly with some of the points made by the hon. Members for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) and Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). It concerns the proposal to omit the words on the Order Paper. Both speakers have slightly confused the issue by suggesting—

Mr. John Wells

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Approximately every two hours the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has come chuntering into the Chamber without having been present and has then had a little furtive conversation with the Chair and fluttered to and fro. It will be in your personal recollection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that at the conclusion of the Budget speech of 1966 you, with the greatest respect, were in certain difficulties, if I remember rightly, because—[Interruption.]—of some tic-tac or flag wagging that went on behind you which you were unable to see because you were on that occasion in the little Chair. [Hon. Members: "Wasting time."] We have observed approximately every two hours this evening the right hon. Member for Leeds, West coming in and going through these movements and then sitting in a position in the Chamber out of sight of the Chair and going through this same sort of tic-tac movement. Is this not, frankly, an abuse of our debate when the right hon. Gentleman has not listened to the discussion—[Interruption.]—but has then come in and moved the Closure—without having listened to the speeches?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not a point of order. Obviously, I am not responsible for the way in which hon. or right hon. Members behave in the Chamber.

Mr. C. Pannell

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As my name was mentioned, perhaps I might point out that it is probably not within the knowledge of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) that you are not in a position to accept the Closure. So any word that I may say to you can hardly be anything to do with the Closure at all. Any hon. Member except the hon. Member for Maidstone would have known that anyway. But it is not true that I have not been in this place. Not only was I present on Second Reading but I attended every sitting of the Standing Committee—

Mr. John Wells

And regularly moved the Closure.

Mr. Pannell

—and have taken a prominent part in this debate. I have been here practically the whole of the time. I suggest that the point of order is a complete abuse by the hon. Gentleman, who is completely ignorant of these things, anyway.

Mr. Frederic Harris (Croydon, North-West)

Further to that point of order. I have been in the House all the time since the commencement of the debate, and I want to hear every speech, because, like everybody else, I am very interested in what is said, but it makes a complete farce of the situation if the right hon. Gentleman keeps coming in like this every two hours. Cannot something be done about it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think we should make better progress if we resumed the debate on the Amendment.

Mr. Maclennan

I share with the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford some anxiety about the proposed addition to the Clause of the words "existing children of her family" for the reasons which he gave, but on further reflection it would seem that in fact two doctors acting in good faith and making a medical judgment—and they are called upon by the Clause to make a medical judgment—would be hard put to it in most circumstances one can think of to suggest that the continuance of the pregnancy of the mother would constitute a risk to the health of the other children of the family.

The sub-paragraph with that addition would not indicate that the pregnancy can be terminated on the ground that there is an increase in the family expected, but because there is an existing pregnancy, and consequently, as I read the Clause, it is not a social addition which is being made but a further amplification of the medical condition, a further amplification of the medical criteria which the doctor will apply in determining whether or not the pregnancy should be terminated. Consequently I think that, although these fears are very justifiable, because of the very improbability of its being possible to establish that the health or life of the existing children is likely to be affected, this Amendment, which adds very little to the Bill, is not of sufficient moment to merit rejection.

Sir L. Heald

I suggest that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has demonstrated very conclusively that the proposed Amendment is so ambiguous as to what it does and what it does not do, and as to one of the things he certainly did not think it should do, and that, if it is as ambiguous as that, we certainly should not accept it.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

I should like to make a brief intervention. I have not spoken on this before. I am on precisely the point which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) have made, and that is to try to ascertain precisely what this Amendment would do. I was very interested indeed to hear the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) put forward the case as the kind of case which could be covered by his new Amendment. It seemed to me crystal clear that the kind of case he was talking about was one which would be covered by the Clause unamended at all—in other words, leaving in the word "well-being"—and would not be covered by the Clause as it would be if the Amendment were accepted.

As a layman who has not followed the debates, I hope the House will realise that the Amendment would not bring about any major change. There has not been a major concession. It would not make a major change in the intent of the Clause. Justification only applies in the sense that the Amendment would cover the cases quoted by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles and the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger).

So far as I can see, the subsection would read: … risk … of injury to the … mental health of any existing children …". That is a wide margin. For a doctor to have to consider whether there is risk to the mental health of other existing children is so wide a provision that surely, to an average person of average intelligence, it would be just as much covered by the word "well-being".

We admire the sincerity and determination of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, but I put it to him that the Amendment does not make a major concession. All the arguments which can be adduced for "well-being" can be adduced for the words of the Amendment. Most people who wanted to change the Clause wished to draw a distinction between medical judgment and social judgment. But the Amendment does not make a divide between the two. By the Amendment, medical practitioners would be expected to make a judgment which others might be as well qualified to make, if, indeed, anyone outwith the family is qualified to make it.

The cases quoted were from underprivileged homes which were the basis for some kind of social or medical problems which might perhaps justify the termination of a pregnancy. But there can be as much danger to mental health in over-affluent homes or in excessively privileged circumstances as there can be in under-privileged homes. I have been surprised to hear arguments about homes in Glasgow being overcrowded, with inadequate facilities. I wish that some of those who put this sort of thing as justification for termination of pregnancy would come to my constituency or that of the hon. Lady the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) or other Glasgow constituencies and look at some of these so-called slums, with perhaps one room and an outside toilet. They would see that many of them are little palaces. Many people in them raise large families which turn out to be a credit to them and to Glasgow.

I do not assume that inferior families come out of inferior houses. Often, the reverse is the case. In many cases, over-privileged homes with plenty of space and money do not produce the quality of life one finds in many poorer homes.

I am sure that it is not intentional but it is possible to mislead hon. Members into thinking that a major concession of principle is being made by this Amendment. I do not think that it is a major concession because we still have this dividing line which should come between medical and social judgment. In these circumstances, I hope that many of those who have supported the Bill in principle will realise that there is a significant principle here and will not accept the Amendment.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Hogg

I have tried to keep fairly detached in this matter, and I hope that I have succeeded, although if any one has observed the ways I have voted it would require a scholiast to explain in each case why I have voted in that direction.

I did say earlier that I would, if need be, come to the aid of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). Although there is one important point of dispute which can be raised, we should not underestimate the extent to which the hon. Gentleman has made a concession in the first part of his Amendment. It would be a great mistake in construing the Bill not to realise the importance of what is proposed by the omission of the word "well-being". I would have opposed the inclusion of the word "well-being" with all the force at my command, because it is absolutely crucial to ensure in this Bill, if it is to pass, that the criteria, whatever they are, which the two doctors are to apply in deciding whether to terminate a pregnancy, should be such as a medical man can claim to be within the ambit of his professional experience, qualification and training.

The word "well-being", were it to be included, could include almost anything. A very religious doctor could consider the future of the mother or the children in the next world. It is very difficult to say that they were not well-being. Another much more materially minded doctor might consider that the inability of the family to enjoy a new television set or a new car might justify the termination of a pregnancy as interfering with well-being. Personally, I should have found it wholly impossible to justify the inclusion of a word so vague and meaningless as a criterion by which the termination of a pregnancy should be judged.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles has omitted that word, and it is an injustice to him not to realise that he has made an important concession, because, whatever may be left afterwards—and I recognise that there are controversial matters left—he has at least ensured that the criteria by which the thing shall be judged will be medical criteria. I regard that as a concession of major importance.

I do not want to defend the words proposed to be included about the remaining children. I would far rather remain aloof on that point. It obviously involves difficult questions and I do not want to detain the House at this stage. However, I thought it fair to the hon. Gentleman to say that I regard the first part of his Amendment as one of major importance which goes a very long way to making the Bill more acceptable.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I found the contribution by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) most impressive. She could be faulted in the logic of her remarks in relation to the Amendment under consideration, but the intervention which she made put the whole case for the Bill and, incidentally, for the Amendment. I have considerable sympathy with her point of view. She was saying that we have a situation now where if a woman needs an abortion and can pay for it she can have it, but if she needs it and cannot pay for it she does not have it. I am not unsympathetic to the plea which the hon. Lady put forward. If one rejects it, it is for wider moral and social considerations and not because one is unaware of the force of the argument and the feeling behind her particular plea.

I should like also to give some qualified support to this Amendment. I certainly consider, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), that it is an improvement as far as it goes. I have never been opposed to a moderate measure of abortion law reform. I hope I have made that position clear. One of my strongest objections to this Bill has been the inclusion of this expression "well-being" because it is extremely vague and virtually incapable of legal definition. That is the argument which I put in Committee. I must say that when I did put it in Committee and when others did so too, it was rejected by the sponsor of the Bill in no uncertain terms. He pointed out that it was approved by the Law Society and by the Academy of Forensic Sciences, that it occurred in the Church of England Report which had approved it. Again and again he insisted that "well-being" was absolutely essential to this Bill.

May I quote what the hon. Member said about an intervention on this point, made with great cogency by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson). The sponsor of the Bill said: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was asking that we should not include the word 'wellbeing' because he thought the word 'health' would be interpreted sufficiently widely to allow all the things we were talking about to be taken into account. I am concerned that cases could still be brought where the decision of the court would hinge on an interpretation of the word 'health' just as some previous cases have hinged on an interpretation of the word 'life'. If it is the intention of Parliament that social conditions should be taken into account I believe we have a duty to say so clearly, not only for the benefit of the court, but also for the benefit of the medical profession which is looking for pretty clear guidance from Parliament, and I do not think it is enough to leave it at 'health'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 15th February, 1967, c. 251.] Having attended that Committee and having had one's argument rejected in that way, one must ask oneself why has there been this change in the attitude of the sponsor of the Bill. That is a fair question that one is entitled to ask. If this was vital to the Bill on 15th February, why is it not equally vital on 30th June?

Mr. David Steel rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene? I shall show him more courtesy than he showed to me when he made a personal reference to me and would not give way. I do not intend to follow that bad example.

Mr. Steel

The reason that I did not give way earlier was that I knew the hon. Gentleman would speak later. The hon. Gentleman will agree that if he continues the quotation to the end of the speech—which I hope he will not, because it is lengthy—he will come to a point, where I began my remarks today, when I undertook to look at the matter again.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Yes, I know he said that he would look at the matter again. But he has not explained why, having looked at the matter again, he has changed his mind. All that I can suggest on that point is that there may be some other considerations which we have not heard about, not unconnected with the granting of extra time for this Bill, which have led him to change his mind.

A further reason for the conversion of the sponsor to taking out these words is surely, as has been said, that the change in some ways is more apparent than real. The Amendment seeks to leave out the words: the future well-being of herself and or the child or her other children; But, having done that, it is proposed to substitute the words: any existing children of her family, and". Clearly it is right to take out the reference to the child because it is a nonsense to say that the well-being of the child could advanced by being eliminated. But the point about the existing children of the family—a point on which I wished to interrupt the sponsor of the Bill—is that it is sought to be put in as an alternative ground. The hon. Member made the point that if they were joined by "and", before an abortion could be carried out a doctor would have to consider not only the health of the mother, but the health of the existing children. I accept that. By his Amendment, however, the hon. Member has separated the two. The life or health of the mother and the life or health of the children are separate grounds for abortion. It is the separation into two, so that the second part is not considered as part of the health or life of the mother, that causes the objection which many of us have to the Amendment.

Thirdly, it is unnecessary to put it that way, because paragraph (a)(ii) includes the point adequately for the purposes of the sponsor of the Bill, since it states: in determining whether or not there is such risk of injury to health or well-being account may be taken of the patient's total environment actual or reasonably foreseeable".

Mr. Braine

My hon. Friend has said that in Committee upstairs the sponsor of the Bill stated that the medical profession was looking for a clear lead from us. My hon. Friend will be aware that

consistently the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have been opposed to the inclusion of "well-being". Will he take it from me that they are equally opposed to the separate grounds which the sponsor of the Bill now proposes?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Certainly. In the course of these months I have come to regard my hon. Friend as the alter ego of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the mouthpiece of obstetricians, if that is not an anatomical impossibility.

Mr. Braine

And the Royal College of Nursing?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

We must leave it there.

I have made the points which I want to make on the Amendment and I will now cease, because I do not wish, by waving my arms, to rouse the ire of the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), nor do I want to start the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) hovering again, because the hover is always followed by an unfortunate Guillotine.

If I may venture, in line with what I have said in my objections to and comments on the Amendment, to offer some advice to my hon. Friends—which they are at complete liberty to take or not—I think that in view of the course of the debate it would be reasonable, in view of the views which have been expressed, not to vote against the deletion of "well-being" but that one should vote against the inclusion of the words about the existing children of the family which have been so widely objected to.

Mr. C. Pannell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 71.

Brooks, Edwin	Hornby, Richard	Pardoe, John
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Horner, John	Park, Trevor
Brown, Bob (Npc'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Cant, R. B.	Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Carlisle, Mark	Howie, W.	Pavitt, Laurence
Channon, H. P. G.	Huckfield, L.	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Coe, Denis	Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Price, William (Rugby)
Concannon, J. D.	Hunt, John	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Rees, Merlyn
Corfield, F. V.	Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)	Reynolds, G. W.
Crawshaw, Richard	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Richard, Ivor
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Dell, Edmund	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Dewar, Donald	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Etwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Jones, Rt. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Ryan, John
Dobson, Ray	Judd, Frank	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Dunnett, Jack	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)	Sheldon, Robert
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Lestor, Miss Joan	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Lipton, Marcus	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Ellis, John	Loughlin, Charles	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Ensor, David	Luard, Evan	Snow, Julian
		Spriggs, Leslie
Faulds, Andrew	Lubbock, Eric	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Stonehouse, John
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	MacColl, James	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	MacDermot, Niall	Swingler, Stephen
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Maclennan, Robert.	Taverne, Dick
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Forrester, John	Mayhew, Christopher.	Urwin, T. W.
Foster, Sir John	Mendelson, J. J	Vickers, Dame Joan
Fowler, Gerry	Mikardo, Ian	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Fraser, John (Norwood)	Millan, Bruce	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Freeson, Reginald	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Weitzman, David
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Moyle, Roland	Wellbeloved, James
Goodhart, Philip	Murray, Albert	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Newens, Stan	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Gresham Cooke, R.	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)	Winnick, David
Hale, Leslie (Oldham W.)	Ogden, Eric	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Hamling, William	Onslow, Crarrtey
Haseldine, Norman	Oram, Albert	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Heseltine, Michael	Orme, Stanley	Mr. Edward Lyons and
Hobden, Denis (Brighton, K'town)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)	Sir George Sinclair.
Hooley, Frank	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

NOES
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Harris, Reader (Heston & Islew'th)	Montgomery, Fergus
Alldritt, Walter	Harvie, Anderson, Miss	Murton, Oscar
Baker, W. H. K.	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Oakes, Gordon
Biggs-Davison, John	Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Oswald, Thomas
Black, Sir Cyril	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Braine, Bernard	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Percival, Ian
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Clegg, Walter	Kerby, Capt. Henry	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Culten, Mrs. Alice	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Small, William
Cunningham, Sir Knox	Kimball, Marcus	Summers, Sir Spencer
Dalkeith, Earl of	Kitson, Timothy	Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
d'Avigdor-Goidsmid, Sir Henry	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Tinn, James
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Lever, L. M. (M'nchstr, Ardwick)	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Delargy, Hugh	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Wall, Patrick
Dempsey, James	McBride, Neil	Ward, Dame Irene
Dunn, James A.	Macdonald, A. H.	Wells, John (Maidstone)
English, Michael	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Fortescue, Tim	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Galpern, Sir Myer	Maddan, Martin	Wright, Esmond
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Glover, Sir Douglas	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gurden, Harold	Marten, Neil	Mr. R. Grant-Ferris and
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Maude, Angus	Mr. Robert Cooke.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Monro, Hector

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am informed of hon. Members in the Lobby refusing to pass the Tellers. I direct the Serjeant at Arms to instruct the hon. Members to pass the Tellers. I must inform the House that I take a serious view of what has just happened. If it happened again I would have no alternative but to instruct the Serjeant at Arms to take the names of the hon. Gentlemen who had refused to pass the Tellers; and then I would be compelled to do what I would most regrettably have to do, which would be to name the hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Marten

On a point of order. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Mr. Marten, point of order?

Mr. Marten

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that that remark might have been directed at me. I was, in fact, the first through the Division Lobby. I cast my vote first and I merely happened to be there, at the writing desk.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Speaker was not directing his remark at any specific hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Marten

I mentioned it just in case.

Mr. Grant-Ferris

Further to that point of order. May I put to you, with the utmost respect, Mr. Speaker, the fact that there were no other voters in the Lobby? At the time, and owing to the fact that there was nobody there to see that the Lobby was empty, we two Tellers had

Division No. 411.]	AYES	[4.30 a.m.
Albu, Austen	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Allaun Frank (Salford, E.)	Forrester, John	Mayhew, Christopher
Allen, Scholefield	Foster, Sir John	Mendelson, J. J.
Archer, Peter	Fowler, Gerry	Mikardo, Ian
Armstrong, Ernest	Fraser, John (Norwood)	Millan, Bruce
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Freeson, Reginald	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Bacon, Rt. Hn, Alice	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Moyle, Roland
Bagier, Cordon A. T.	Goodhart, Philip	Murray, Albert
Barnes, Michael	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Newens, Stan
Barnett, Joel	Gresham Cooke, R.	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Beaney, Alan	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Ogden, Eric
Bidwell, Sydney	Hamling, William	Oram, Albert E.
Bishop, E. S.	Haseldine, Norman	Orme, Stanley
Booth, Albert	Heseltine, Michael	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Bossom, Sir Clive	Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Hooley, Frank	Pardoe, John
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Hornby, Richard	Park, Trevor
Brooks, Edwin	Horner, John	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)	Pavitt, Laurence
Cant, R. B.	Howie, W.	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Channon, H. P. G.	Huckfield L.	Price, William (Rugby)
Coe, Denis	Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Concannon, J. D.	Hunt, John	Rees, Merlyn
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Reynolds, G. W.
Crawshaw, Richard	Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St.P'cras, S.)	Richard, Ivor
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Robinson, Rt.Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Dell, Edmund	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Dewar, Donald	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Ryan, John
Dobson, Ray	Judd, Frank	Sharpies, Richard
Dunnett, Jack	Kerr Dr. David (W'worth, Central)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Sheldon, Robert
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & c'b'e)	Lestor, Miss Joan	Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Ellis, John	Lipton, Marcus	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Ensor, David	Loughlin, Charles	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Faulds, Andrew	Luard, Evan	Snow, Julian
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Lubbock, Eric	Spriggs, Leslie
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	MacDermot, Niall	Stonehouse, John
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Maclennan, Robert	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

to remain there until we were—sure[Interruption.]—and only one hon. Gentleman remained in the Lobby and had already passed us. I do not think that there was any disrespect to the House.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I hope that what the hon. Gentleman is saying is true and that that is an explanation of what happened. I am not doubting the hon. Gentleman's word, and I trust that the debate is being carried on in a reasonable way. I do not believe that that delay in the Lobby is of any advantage to Parliament or to the opponents or proponents of any Measure.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 77.

Swingler, Stephen	Weitzman, David	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Urwin, T. W.	Wellbeloved, James
Vickers, Dame Joan	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Wainwright Richard (Colne Valley)	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)	Sir George Sinclair and
Walden, Brian (All Saints)	Winnick, David	Mr. Edward Lyons.

NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Montgomery, Fergus
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Murton, Oscar
Alldritt, Walter	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Oakes, Cordon
Baker, W. H. K.	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Onslow, Cranley
Biggs-Davison, John	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Oswald, Thomas
Black, Sir Cyril	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Braine, Bernard	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Percival, Ian
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Corfield, F. V.	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)	Small, William
Cunningham, Sir Knox	Kimball, Marcus	Summers, Sir Spencer
Dalkeith, Earl of	Kitson, Timothy	Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
d'Avigdor-Goidsmid, Sir Henry	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Tinn, James
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Delargy, Hugh	McBride, Neil	Wall, Patrick
Dempsey, James	MacColl, James	Ward, Dame Irene
Dunn, James A,	Macdonald, A. H.	Welts, John (Maidstone)
English, Michael	McGuire, Michael	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Fortescue, Tim	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Williams, Mrs. Shirey (Hitchin)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Galpern, Sir Myer	McNamara, J. Kevin	Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Gilmour, Sir Jhon (Fife, E.)
Glover, Sir Douglas	Maddan, Martin	Wright, Esmond
Gurden, Harold	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Harris, Reader (Heston)	Marten, Neil	Mr. R. Grant-Ferris and
Harvie Anderson, Miss	Maude, Angus	Mr. Robert Cooke.
Heald, Rt, Hn. Sir Lionel	Monro, Hector

Mr. Speaker

We come now to—

Mr. English

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you, at this stage, be prepared to entertain a Motion to adjourn the debate?

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must seek to move it—

Mr. English

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, That this debate be now adjourned—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman must move his Motion with the words—

Mr. English rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's eagerness. I am assisting him. He will move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.

Mr. English

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.

Hon. Members

Shame.

Mr. English

It is clear from the sounds that we heard when I moved this that some hon. Members think that I am doing so for delaying reasons—[Interruption.] I can only say that they will realise that I am not by reason of the length of speech which I propose to make. It will not be a long one.

I move this Motion for two very simple reasons—[An HON. MEMBER: "He wants to go to bed."] It must be obvious to anyone who is aware of the way the procedure of this House works that the Government will not allow their own business to be interfered with by this debate—[Interruption.] It will therefore be cut off at an hour before that—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We have been debating seriously all night. Running commentaries or interjections do not help at this stage.

Mr. English

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that no Government would allow its business to be interfered with. This debate, therefore, will inevitably be cut off at some time not later than 11 o'clock this morning.

Supporters of the Bill were in favour of the last Amendment. It is clear from the course of the debate that full consideration of the Bill on Report and Third Reading will not be completed by the hour I have mentioned. In these circumstances it seems wholly and utterly reasonable for the sake of hon. Members on both sides of the House and to those in support of and against the Bill, and the officers of the House—we have had an example that some are not exactly—[An HON. MEMBER: "No more tickets for you"]—I do not think that any of my constituents want tickets at this hour.

At this stage this Motion is wholly and utterly reasonable. It would enable hon. Members and officials to go home—including you, Mr. Speaker—to get a reasonable measure of sleep before business begins later this morning.

Mr. Houghton

The consideration which the hon. Member is extending to hon. Members on both sides of the House is utterly misplaced. Hon. Members on both sides who do not wish to stay can go home. This is private Members' time—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker

Order. There is no reason why this all-night proceeding should not be conducted in a good Parliamentary way.

Mr. Houghton

I repeat that this is private Members' time on a Private Member's Bill. That should be precious to hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House. If we are to waste our own time so sparingly granted each Session by the Sessional Orders, we are unconscious of the injury we are doing to our interests as private Members. This is a squalid manoeuvre. It is difficult to discuss it except in contemptuous terms.

This Bill was given a Second Reading nearly a year ago. [An HON. MEMBER: "By an overwhelming majority."] It has spent 33 hours in Committee and five hours the other Friday on Report. The Government have given the opportunity for private Members to discuss a Private Member's Bill in non-Government time. Yet here we are not knowing how to use it and not doing credit to the reputation of Parliament. If we go on like this the repute of this House will sink lower than it is already. The public will ask, "When are these measures of reform to come out of the House of Commons if hon. Members behave in this way throughout the night?" I hope that we shall end this reprehensible exhibition of filibustering. We know that there is a filibuster going on. We saw the letter sent out by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas).

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are discussing at the moment whether we should adjourn.

Mr. Houghton

Yes. I confessed how difficult it was to speak with any restraint. We have until nine o'clock or after. We can make further progress on the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why nine?"] We can spend as much time on the Bill today as the House resolves to spend on it. If this business is broken off to allow Government business to come forward, that will be the decision of the House. We know that some hon. Members who oppose the Bill wish to do so by procedural obstruction and not by the merits of debate. In these circumstances, it is the bounden duty of the House of Commons to have regard to its own self-respect and continue with its business. We have the whole of the night for this debate. Every Member of the House knew that we had the whole of the night for the debate. There was no question arising during the night as to how long we were going on. We knew that this had been allotted as private Members' time for a Private Member's Bill and it was fully expected by all right hon. and hon. Members that it would be used to the full. Will anyone deny that?

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson

It has been used. Where has the right hon. Gentleman been?

Mr. Houghton

I have been here the whole time.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must deprecate this back chat cross the Floor. There are opinions strongly held on both sides. There is no need for hon. Members who have not got the Floor at the moment to shout across the Floor at each other.

Mr. Houghton

I have had my say. I sincerely hope that, for the reputation of the House, we can make further progress with the Bill and not delay what we have to do by a frivolous discussion on adjourning the debate.

Sir L. Heald

I did not have the privilege and interest of serving on the Standing Committee. I have studied the Bill with care and followed its progress with great interest. I have taken a very limited part in what has been going on today.

The discussion has been good debating and interesting. Several points of great importance have been raised and dealt with. It is absolutely wrong to say that there has been filibustering. [Interruption.] That is what I think, and I think it is right. As I am not prejudiced either way, I believe I am entitled to speak.

One very good reason why we should stop now is this. I have for many years had a great admiration for and, I hope, friendship with the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I believe he is a little tired. If we adjourn now he would be able to have a good sleep. Clearly there is much more serious discussion to take place on the Bill. I do not know anything about the probable length of the debates, but it is certain that there are three or four important debates yet to come. Whatever anyone says, we are not at our best discussing these difficult matters at 7 and 8 o'clock in the morning.

I ask the House to take this seriously. The right hon. Gentleman said that there might be a danger of the country getting the wrong idea of the way we behave. I think that people will get a worse idea if we insist on sitting here until nine o'clock instead of going home now.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

I would like to echo the words of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). I have sat here throughout this debate, and, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), I was not privileged to be a member of the Committee.

We have had to debate the precise use of words, and it has been a debate of a very high order. It has been an analysis of what phrases mean, and it is only right and proper that the House of Commons should spend time on a Measure which is important to thousands of people. I believe that there has not been filibustering but a serious debate of a very high level.

Considering the niceties of language used, and the problems with which the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has had to contend—the language has been changed no less than eight times—I believe that we should adjourn now. We will be in better heart and form to continue with this on a later occasion. The sponsors of the Bill must realise that they cannot get the Bill through today, and I would have thought that it would be better to adjourn now.

Mr. Maude

If the sponsors of the Bill want this Motion to be disposed of fairly quickly and reasonably, the speech of the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) is hardly the way to achieve it.

Having sat through 33 hours of discussion in Standing Committee, which the right hon. Gentleman did not, and having made only three speeches during the progress of the Measure, I do not think I can be accused of filibustering. I think the right hon. Gentleman must realise that if he makes speeches like that at this time of the night it is as good a reason for adjourning the debate as any we have heard. It should be remembered that only a day or two ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he did not think it was right that the House of Commons should discuss important matters after midnight.

Unless we have some indication from the Government of their intentions, as well as those of the sponsors of the Bill, about the future progress of this Measure, it is very difficult for us to come to a conclusion on the Motion which was moderately and briefly moved by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we could have the Leader of the House here to tell us that.

Mr. Dunn

I appeal to hon. Members to recognise that this is a very important matter. I oppose the majority of the Bill, but I think that we do our cause no good by discussing the Motion at length, and I hope that hon. Members will now desist. It has been moved with good intent, but evidently this has been misunderstood, or perhaps there is a strong feeling that because progress on the Bill has not been as rapid as some expected and they are rather sore about it. I ask the House to confine itself to disposing of the rest of the Amendments, rather than discussing a procedural problem in a way which can only bring us grief at the end of the day.

Mr. Corfield

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) in deploring the approach of the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we are lowering the repute of the House by carrying on with an important Measure of this kind till five in the morning is in such contrast to the views of his own party on the use of all-night sittings—in order to cure which we now have the ludicrous business of morning sittings—that it is sheer humbug on his part to make such comments now.

We are here because the Government have taken it upon themselves to select for this treatment various Private Members' Bills on highly controversial subjects which touch deeply hon. Members on both sides, and it is nonsense and hypocrisy to accuse hon. Members who wish to consider these questions gravely, as they ought, of filibustering when they do so. I strongly resent the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I hope that it will be realised by everyone that we are here because the Government have not got the guts to take over the conduct of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot discuss now the question of the guts or lack of guts of the Government. We are considering whether consideration of the Bill should be adjourned.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

I support my hon. Friends in this matter, and I hope that the House can forget the somewhat intemperate and slightly pompous speech of the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). It will not help us if we embark on a consideration of the Motion in a spirit of over-tiredness or heat.

There are two excellent reasons for supporting the Motion. The probability of passing the Bill through all its stages in the time remaining to us this morning is non-existent. Whatever their views, it would be very foolish of hon. Members to insist on beating out their brains for another four hours on a discussion which will be entirely nugatory unless and until we have the advantage of hearing from the right hon. Gentleman who is sometimes laughingly called the Leader of the House what the Government's intention is regarding allowing further time for the Bill.

The House should be sufficiently adult to recognise the facts. It should realise that we do our reputation no good by keeping ourselves, you, Mr. Speaker, and many servants of the House from bed in an exercise which is becoming entirely pointless.

Mr. Hugh Delargy (Thurrock)

I do not mind whether further consideration is adjourned or not. If a Division is called, I shall abstain, just to show my neutrality.

I do not object in the least to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton); I disagreed with it, but I do not object to it. I do not object to his being intemperate or anything else. People feel deeply on this matter, and they can lose their tempers about it. Indeed, this might be a healthy sign. I am glad that people feel so deeply about a principle that they can fight among themselves about it. I am all for that.

What I do object to, very gently, if I may, are comments by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends accusing me, when I oppose the Bill, of being obscurantist and reactionary, particularly when I compare my political record with theirs.

Dr. David Kerr (Wandsworth, Central)

The Motion is being used by some opponents of the Bill as a vehicle to attack the Government and, at the same time, in a curious "standing on the head" fashion, it is being used to attack my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), whose intemperateness is deplored by others who try to out-do him at it. There is no need for intemperate speaking. Most of us are experienced Parliamentarians, and whatever we may say for outside consumption we all know that this is a perfectly legitimate use of procedural methods. Opportunities to delay the progress of a Bill have for long been an inbuilt part of our Parliamentary democracy as a way of defeating it. While some of us may talk of filibustering, others recognise, albeit with regret, that the opponents of the Bill are making use of the opportunities built into our Parliamentary procedure for reasons which they hold sincerely.

5.0 a.m.

We feel that this is quite wrong, and when hon. Members opposing the Bill charge the Government with giving it priority I remind them that the House and another place have overwhelmingly given it priority. Such a clear vote of confidence in the progress of the Bill called on the Government a need to give it consideration. That is what has happened, and it is now the duty of the House to proceed with all reasonable expedition to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Do not delay it.

Dr. Kerr

It is not the supporters of the Bill who are delaying it and keeping the House up at night. They would have gone home hours if not days ago with the Bill having been given its Third Reading. Let nobody charge the supporters with delay.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We must keep to the question of whether we postpone further consideration of the Bill.

Dr. Kerr

In view of that, Mr. Speaker, I only urge that the House reject the Motion and proceed with all reasonable speed to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Marcus Kimball (Gainsborough)

I support the Motion. It is distressing for all of us that the Leader of the House is still absent. After all, he is responsible for this unique experiment of having private Members' time running all through the night. He should be here to see how his experiment is getting on.

We should now adjourn. We have been discussing the Bill on Report for over seven hours—well in excess of the time which has been allowed for the Report stage of any Private Members' Bill since Private Members' Bills were restored in 1945. We are here only because of the abuse of private Members' time which hon. Members opposite have supported. This is not the way to handle Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Hogg

I wish to intervene for only a moment or two. I deprecate the charges and counter-charges of the kind we have heard on both sides, because it is obvious that both sides are entirely sincere in their respective attitudes. I deprecated the use of the all-night sitting to get the Bill through, not because I want to hold it up but simply because experience has led me to believe that tempers tend to rise after about three o'clock in the morning, although I understand the eagerness with which the supporters of the Bill want to get it through.

I invite the Government to let us know what further time they would make available for discussion of the Bill if we adjourned now. They owe it to the House to tell us. I am not asking the Leader of the House to be here, because I dare say that it is inconvenient for him to attend, but several very senior members of the Government are present and they must know what the situation is. Suppose we find it more convenient and dignified to adjourn now. Will they tell us what further time might be made available for the consideration of the Bill, at perhaps a more convenient hour, and at a time perhaps when we could indulge in rational discussion in a more equable frame of mind?

Mr. Roy Jenkins

I rise for only a a moment or two. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, although it is well after three o'clock in the morning my temper is not rising, and I notice no sign of his temper rising either.

As to the debate on the Motion, I accept fully that there are very sincere and deep views held on this subject on both sides of the House and cutting across the sides of the House. But I find that some rather contradictory arguments have been put in supporting the Motion. The first is that the level of debate has been very high till now but will suddenly plunge precipitately downwards if we go on any longer. The second is that the Government have been wrong to give any time for the Bill—I think that the interest that the Bill has aroused both inside and ouside the House fully justifies the time—but that, while the Government have been wrong to give any time, they would now be right to give a definite pledge about future time if we adjourned.

What is clearly the case, and what I must say to the House, is that I think it is true, as my right hon. Friend said, that most hon. Members knew that we were in for a long sitting. I believe that all hon. Members, whatever their views on the Bill, who want to come to a decision on the Bill and on points on the Bill, would now think it reasonable not to hold it up but that we should go on and use some of the re- maining time available. I think that we can use four hours or so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I was asked to give some indication of what we thought was a reasonable proposition, and the indication that I give is that in my view it would be reasonable to proceed for about another four hours. Clearly, we shall not complete the Bill, but we can make progress. We must make as much progress as we can, and the Government will then consider the position in relation to what progress we have made.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Sir S. Summers

Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether by his remarks we are to understand that the Government Whips will be put on at nine o'clock?

Mr. C. Pannell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Sir D. Glover

The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) who moved the Motion in a most moderate fashion, has, I think, the support of a great many hon. Members. This is a Bill of transcendent importance. Hon. Members who are rather excited about it and want to get it through very quickly are perhaps in the excitement of the moment forgetting that we are dealing here with human life. [Interruption.] An hon. Member says "Rubbish". But we are dealing with human life, that of the mother and the unborn child. A Bill of this importance is one that every hon. Member ought to be able to weigh up with the greatest judgment. We have now been discussing it, after a full day's ordinary business, for seven hours already, more than a normal sitting of the House.

It seems to me that the House will be very foolish if it insists on going on much longer than it has done already. It is now after five o'clock. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that this is an additional burden on you. I do not think that hon. Members ought to forget that this is also an additianal burden on the staff of the House, who are now here as well at five o'clock in the morning, and will be expected to be here to service the House for the Third Reading of the Finance Bill on Friday and on Monday. I understand that the Officers of the House are already finding it extraordinarily difficult to maintain the staff with the late sittings that the House seems to have got into the habit of having in recent times. That is why I think the Motion should be accepted. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) helped at all by the mood in which he addressed the House.

As to the problem of the Bill itself, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) I think has said he is looking for a form of words which he wants to bring into the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) had an Amendment which was at one time debatable but is not on the Paper today. If there were a delay with the Bill he would, no doubt, be able to get that Amendment on the Paper, and I think it would remove a great deal of the opposition of a lot of hon. Members who are worried about the Bill if that Amendment were open to discussion and vote. But this can only happen if there is a delay, a break in the debate on Report of the Bill.

We have already had seven hours' debate. I think it is true to say that the debates up to now have been of a very high standard. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said about that. I think it is true that the debates have been very thoughtful. I do not accept at all the view that there has been filibustering, and so on. I think the debates have been of a very high standard indeed. [Interruption.] This is what I deplore in the attitude of those who are apparently unqualified supporters of the Bill: they seem to think that anybody who holds a slightly different view, or who makes a speech about it, is automatically filibustering. This is a Bill dealing with human life, the life of the mother or of the unborn child, and I think it is right and proper that the Bill should receive weighty discussion on the Floor of the House. The Committee stage took 33 hours. I do not think anybody has said there was filibustering in the Committee.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are on a specific Motion at the moment.

Sir D. Glover

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I am trying to keep strictly in order, but I am trying to rebut the argument being put by the opponents of this Motion that there has been filibustering. That was the only reason why I entered into the history of the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), who said he had spoken only three times to the Bill, has taken a great interest in the Bill. He has spoken tonight, as have other hon. Members interested in the Bill. For many of us this is the first opportunity we have had of getting our teeth into the problem—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This applies to the whole House except for the 25 Members of the Committee. This is the first time we have had an opportunity in public, in the House, of stating our views, or expressing an opinion, expressing our fears, our worries, and so on.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The question before the House is whether we continue our discussion or not.

Sir D. Glover

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I have tried very hard to keep strictly to the Motion. I think it is important that when this is the first time we have had the opportunity of discussing matters of such great weight and importance we do not overdo the time scale and do not now go on with debate. It is now a quarter past five.

Division No. 412.]	AYES	[5.17 a.m.
Albu, Austen	Dell, Edmund	Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Dewar, Donald	Hooley, Frank
Allen, Scholefield	Digby, Simon Wingfield	Hornby, Richard
Archer, Peter	Dobson, Ray	Horner, John
Armstrong, Ernest	Dunn, James A.	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Dunnett, Jack	Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Howie, W.
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Huckfield, L.
Barnes, Michael	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Barnett, Joel	Ellis, John	Hunt, John
Beaney, Alan	Ensor, David	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Bidwell, Sydney	Faulds, Andrew	Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)
Bishop, E. S.	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Booth, Albert	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Bossom, Sir Clive	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, w.)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Brooks, Edwin	Forrester, John	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Foster, Sir John	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Fowler, Gerry	Judd, Frank
Cant, R. B.	Fraser, John (Norwood)	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Carlisle, Mark	Freeson, Reginald	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Channon, H. P. G.	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Lestor, Miss Joan
Coe, Denis	Goodhart, Philip	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Concannon, J. D.	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Lipton, Marcus
Cooke, Robert	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Loughlin, Charles
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Hamling, William	Luard, Evan
Crawshaw, Richard	Haseldine, Norman	Lubbock, Eric
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Heseltine, Michael	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Mrs. Renée Short (Wolverhampton, North-East)

A quarter of an hour wasted.

Sir D. Glover

I do not think we shall give the medical profession a belief in our judgment if they realise that they have to carry out a decision we reached at 7 or 8 o'clock in the morning. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby said about that: if the House Commons wants to keep its authority and dignity we should see that those who have to carry out the laws we pass can see, as they have the right to see, that those laws were passed at a reasonable hour of the day or night, and not in the early hours of the morning, when our judgment is, perhaps, affected. [Interruption.] With the greatest respect to the two hon. Ladies opposite, I suggest they could perhaps even be affected by the interjections from the other side of the House. This is not the sort of atmosphere, with interjections across the Floor and people's motives being, imputed, in which thoughtful speeches can be made on a matter which affects human lives.

Mr. C. Pannell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question he now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 64.

MacColl, James	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)	Stonehouse, John
MacDermot, Niall	Pavitt, Laurence	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Maclennan, Robert	Price, William (Rugby)	Swingler, Stephen
McNamara, J. Kevin	Quennell, Miss J. M.	Taverne, Dick
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Rees, Merlyn	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Mayhew, Christopher	Reynolds, G. W.	Urwin, T. W.
Mendelton, J. J.	Richard, Ivor	Vickers, Dame Joan
Mikardo, Ian	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Millan, Bruce	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Moonman, Eric	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)	Weitzman, David
Murray, Albert	Rowland, Christopher (Mereden)	Wellbeloved, James
Newens, Stan	Ryan, John	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Ogden, Eric	Sheldon, Robert	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Oram, Albert E.	Shore, Peter (Stepney)	Winnick, David
Orme, Stanley	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	Silverman, Julius (Aston)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Pardoe, John	Snow, Julian	Mr. Christopher Price and
Park, Trevor	Spriggs, Leslie	Sir George Sinclair.
Parker, John (Dagenham)	Steel, David (Roxburgh)

NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Monro, Hector
Alldritt, Walter	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Murton, Oscar
Baker, W. H. K.	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Oakes, Gordon
Biggs-Davison, John	Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Onslow, Cranley
Black, Sir Cyril	Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Oswald, Thomas
Braine, Bernard	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Clegg, Walter	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Percival, Ian
Corfield, F. V.	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Crowder, F. P.	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Kimball, Marcus	Sharples, Richard
Dalkeith, Earl of	Kitson, Timothy	Summers, Sir Spencer
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)	Wall, Patrick
Delargy, Hugh	McBride, Neil	Ward, Dame Irene
Dempsey, James	Macdonald, A. H.	Wells, John (Maidstone)
English, Michael	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Fortescue, Tim	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	Maddan, Martin	Wright, Esmond
Galpern, Sir Myer	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Glover, Sir Douglas	Marten, Neil	Mr. Harold Gurden and
Grant-Ferris, R.	Maude, Angus	Sir Knox Cunningham.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Question put accordingly, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.

Division No. 413.]	AYES	[5.24 a.m.
Alison Michael (Barkston Ash)	Harris, Frederick (Croydon, N.W.)	Monro, Hector
Alldritt, Walter	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Murton, Oscar
Baker, W. H. K.	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Oakes, Gordon
Biggs-Davison, John	Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Onslow, Cranley
Black, Sir Cyril	Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Oswald, Thomas
Braine, Bernard	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Percival, Ian
Corfield, F. V.	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Crowder, F. P.	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Kimball, Marcus	Sharples, Richard
Dalkeith, Earl of	Kitson, Timothy	Small, William
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Summers, Sir Spencer
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)	Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Dempsey, James	McBride, Neil	Tinn, James
English, Michael	Macdonald, A. H.	Wall, Patrick
Fortescue, Tim	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Ward, Dame Irene
Fraser. Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Galpern, Sir Myer	Maddan, Martin	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Glover, Sir Douglas	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Wright, Esmond
Goodhart, Philip	Marten, Neil
Grant-Ferris, R.	Maude, Angus	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Mr. Harold Gurden and
		Sir Knox Cunningham.

The House divided: Ayes 66, Noes 144.

NOES
Albu, Austen	Foster, Sir John	Newens, Stan
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Fowler, Gerry	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Allen, Scholefield	Fraser, John (Norwood)	Ogden, Eric
Archer, Peter	Freeson, Reginald	Oram, Albert E.
Armstrong, Ernest	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Orme, Stanley
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Hamling, William	Pardoe, John
Barnes, Michael	Haseldine, Norman	Park, Trevor
Barnett, Joel	Heseltine, Michael	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Beaney, Alan	Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Hooley, Frank	Pavitt, Laurence
Bidwell, Sydney	Hornby, Richard	Price, William (Rugby)
Bishop, E. S.	Horner, John	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Boardman, H.	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Rees, Merlyn
Booth, Albert	Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)	Reynolds, G. W.
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Howie, W.	Richard, Ivor
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Huckfield, L.	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, s.)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Brooks, Edwin	Hunt, John	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Brown, Bob, (N'ctle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'Cras, S.)	Ryan, John
Cant, R. B.	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Carlisle, Mark	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Sheldon, Robert
Channon, H. P. G.	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Clegg, Walter	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, w.)	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Coe, Denis	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Concannon, J. D.	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Cooke, Robert	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Snow, Julian
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Judd, Frank	Spriggs, Leslie
Crawshaw, Richard	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Stonehouse, John
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Lestor, Miss Joan	Strauss, Ht. Hn. G. R.
Dell, Edmund	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Swingler, Stephen
Dewar, Donald	Lipton, Marcus	Taverne, Dick
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Loughlin, Charles	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Dobson, Ray	Luard, Evan	Urwin, T. W.
Dunn, James A.	Lubbock, Eric	Vickers, Dame Joan
Dunnett, Jack	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	MacColl, James	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	MacDermot, Niall	Weitzman, David
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Maclennan, Robert	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Ellis, John	McNamara, J. Kevin	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Ensor, David	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Wilson, Willam (Coventry, S.)
Faulds, Andrew	Mayhew, Christopher	Winnick, David
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Mendelson, J. J.	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mikardo, Ian
Foot, Rt. Hn. Dingle (Ipswich)	Millan, Bruce	TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Moonman, Eric	Mr. Christopher Price and
Forrester, John	Murray, Albert	Sir George Sinclair.

Mr. Speaker

We now come to a group of Amendments. With Amendment 17, we are taking also the following Amendments:

Amendment 47: in page 1, line 15, after 'or', insert 'physical or mental'.

Amendment 25: in line 20, at end insert: Provided that no termination shall be carried out on the ground of wellbeing unless the consent has first been given of the panel of experts appointed by the Minister under section 2(1)(d) of this Act.

Amendment 40: in Clause 2, page 2, line 26, at end insert: (d) for appointing a panel of experts made up of doctors, psychiatrists, and social workers to carry out the duties prescribed in the proviso to section 1(1)(b) of this Act.

Mr. David Steel

I beg to move Amendment 17, in page 1, line 15, to leave out 'or well-being'.

This is a purely consequential Amendment.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

It is true that the Amendment, moved by the sponsor of the Bill, to take out the second "well-being" is a consequential Amendment. I for one welcome that consequential Amendment and I think that the vast majority of hon. Members have indicated by their previous actions that they want that "well-being" clause taken out. It is not, however, a question only of Amendment 17. Amendments 47, 25 and 40 have also to be considered.

I would like briefly to say a word about the virtues of having a panel, as my Amendments 25 and 40 provide. Amendment No. 25 provides for a panel of experts and Amendment No. 40 the machinery for their appointment. The experts would be doctors—

Mr. Roy Jenkins

I know that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to hold up the House with unnecessary debate. Do not his two Amendments necessarily fall if the "well-being" Amendment, No. 17, which he said he supports, is carried, as they are geared to it?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

The word "well-being" would be removed, but the possibility of a panel considering the problem remains—

Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)

On a point of order. Would you rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman can discuss the panel only in the context of its interpreting "well-being", as set out in Amendment No. 25, and none of its other functions?

Sir D. Glover

Further to that point of order. Surely my hon. Friend is in order in discussing Amendments Nos. 25 and 40, since the Chair said that the three may be discussed together and the House has reached no conclusion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Nothing divides the two hon. Gentlemen. The House may consider Amendments Nos. 25 and 40 and the hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order in doing so. I am not sure what further point the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is making.

Mr. Lubbock

I am asking you to rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman may discuss no other functions of the panel than those in the Amendment, and cannot discuss their appointment in general.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I must be allowed to rule as the debate proceeds. The Chair is not in the habit of ruling hypothetically.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Amendment No. 40 provides that the experts on the panel would be doctors, psychiatrists and social workers. A panel system already operates successfully elsewhere. Sweden's experience is helpful and relevant—

Mr. Lubbock

Would the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I cannot make up my mind—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to give way or not, but he should make up his mind.

Mr. Lubbock

How is this relevant, if "well-being", on which the hon. Gentleman's Amendment depends, is deleted?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

"Well-being" has not yet been deleted. It is for Mr. Deputy-Speaker, not for me, to rule on what is out of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I hope that the House will not make the job of the Deputy Speaker more difficult.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

On a point of order. Would it not be fair to say that these proceedings have reached the stage of complete farce and that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is making quite obviously and quite deliberately—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I may understand the hon. Member's feelings, but that is not a point of order. If he wishes to make progress he would help by allowing the debate to proceed.

Mr. Hale

May I submit that that was a point of order? It is a clear point of order. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment pointed out that when you were not in the Chair the word "well-being" had been deleted. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] He said that this was a consequential Amendment which need not be discussed. The hon. Member for Chelmsford, who has been doing this all night, is now, with appropriate facial expressions, suggesting that this is a very serious and moving and difficult Bill, and is making it a comedy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The words "or well-being have been selected for debate, as have Amendments 25 and 40, and the House is able to debate them if it wishes. The question of progress is one for the House generally. I must allow the hon. Member for Chelmsford to proceed.

Mr. Corfield

On a point of order. Is it in order to accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) of having reduced the situation to comedy? No one has worked harder on the Bill than he has. I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) will withdraw that remark.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

We are wasting time with matters which are not points of order. I hope that the House will allow the hon. Member for Chelmsford to proceed.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

If criticism is to be levelled at this point, in all fairness—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member would help the House if he did not continue that bogus point of order.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out that I was not the person who raised the point of order in the first instance.

In Sweden abortion is allowed on certain medical grounds. It is also allowed on humanitarian grounds, and on eugenic grounds, too. The principal grounds are three. Abortion is permissible, first of all, where there is a question of the deformity or weakness of the woman and the birth of the child will endanger life or health. The second is where there has been impregnation under certain conditions in the penal code, particularly as a result of rape. The third is where there is a reason to believe that the expected child will inherit mental deficiency or severe disease or deformity. To those three grounds, long established, a fourth was added in 1954. Abortion is also permissible when, in view of the woman's living and other circumstances, it may be assumed that the birth of the expected child will undermine her mental or physical health.

Those are the grounds for authorising abortion in Sweden, and there are two means of bringing it about. It can be done either through the Royal Medical Board or by two doctors who are acting in combination. It is interesting to note that one of these must be a head physician, a medical officer or a physician of equal rank. An earlier Amendment, containing a similar proposal, was rejected earlier in the debate.

5.45 a.m.

The great majority of abortions carried out in Sweden are authorised by the Board or the panel of experts, either on social grounds or—[Interruption]—I wish that hon. Gentlemen would listen—and the Board is brought into operation when a woman is mentally incapable of giving a valid consent. The Board operates with great care and it requires a number of documents, including the birth certificate of the woman concerned, a biography and a certificate from her physician. These biographies must be compiled by social workers and—

Mr. Lubbock

On a point of order. May I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. Gentleman is reading his speech and is not merely using copious notes? Is not this contrary to the rules of the House, as laid down in Chapter XXI of Erskine May?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman was reading his speech. He would be out of order in doing so, but I did not notice whether or not he was doing so. I shall watch; and, meanwhile, I hope that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will leave the matter to the Chair.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I was about to say—

Mr. Robert Cooke

Perhaps while my hon. Friend collects his thoughts—

Mr. Lubbock

His script, more like it.

Mr. Cooke

The continuous conversation in which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has been indulging makes it extremely difficult to hear what my hon. Friend is saying. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could elaborate a little on how these procedures work in Sweden. I have been somewhat disquieted—[Interruption.]—by—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I do not think the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) requires any encouragement to elaborate that point. I think the hon. Gentleman is wasting the time of the House.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Smethwick)

On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member of this House to delay consideration of this necessary social Measure when that hon. Gentleman has not the capacity to put a bun in anybody's oven?

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order.

Hon. Members

Shame.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It would help the interests of the objectives which both hon. Gentlemen wish to achieve if neither of them makes these interventions.

Hon. Members

On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I cannot hear a dozen points of order at one time.

Mr. Grant-Ferris

On a point of order. Would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of your jurisdiction, ask the Clerk to take down the words used by the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds), which were extremely offensive, absolutely gross and disgusting?

Sir Knox Cunningham

He should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I found great difficulty hearing what the hon. Gentleman did say.

Sir Knox Cunningham

Disgusting. Withdraw.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Mr. Grant-Ferris, point of order?

Mr. Grant-Ferris

On a point of order. There are certain things that cannot be said in this House about hon. Members. From the wealth of my experience, which is of longer duration than almost any hon. Member here tonight, I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have never heard such a thing said in this House before. I ask you to ask the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) to repeat the words, which some of us heard, so that the Clerk may note those words and so that the House may decide what steps shall be taken.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I had great difficulty, as I pointed out, in hearing what the hon. Gentleman had to say, but he would help the House if he would repeat what he said, so that—

Mr. C. Pannell rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order—so that I could decide whether it was a remark about which I ought to do something. Or, if he feels perhaps on reflection that it was something that he should withdraw, perhaps he will withdraw it.

Mr. C. Pannell

With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it has long been held by the Chair that that which it does not hear it does not inquire further about—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I want to deal with this. It was said of a very well-respected Speaker of the House—Speaker Fitzroy—that, like most great men, he suffered from the infirmity of not hearing what he did not want to hear and not seeing what he did not want to see. I suggest—[Interruption.]—with very great respect, that it is not within—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think the right hon. Gentleman has made his point very clear. I was inviting the hon. Member who made the remark to assist the House in making progress.

Mr. Faulds

Since I am delighted to say I do not have the benefit of the close friendship of the hon. Gentleman to whom I referred, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps, on consideration, it would be fairer now not to make that assertion because I am really not qualified to do so—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Did I understand that the hon. Gentleman was withdrawing his comment?

Mr. Faulds

I was trying to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think it would be more generous, if on reflection the hon. Gentleman wishes to withdraw it, he were to withdraw it more generously than he did.

Mr. Faulds

On your instructions, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I will certainly withdraw that assertion. Sir—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Mr. St. John-Stevas.

Mr. Robert Cooke

Before my hon. Friend resumes, perhaps I might be allowed to finish the question I was asking of him. I was saying that I believe that in Sweden, because of this procedure that my hon. Friend is describing to the House, there is a certain amount of delay, and that this has caused people not to go before the regular authorities but to seek illicit abortions outside the normal arrangement. Would he please deal with that point?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I will deal with the point, if ever I am allowed to come to it. I would point out that had I been allowed in the first place to have made my few remarks I would have finished them about ten minutes ago. A great majority of abortions in Sweden are actually authorised by the Board and not by the two doctors together. One classification is on social grounds of a quasi-medical character, and the other classification is on eugenic grounds.

I had forgotten, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I had been insulted earlier by the suggestion that I read my speech. I have never read a speech in this House. I do, however, refer to notes. I wonder whether I could make that plain to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows exactly what he is doing. I hope that he will not pursue this but will proceed to his speech.

6.0 a.m.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I am not pursuing it. I forgot to mention the matter and would like to put it right in the record for posterity that I do not read my speeches but do use notes.

The Board also comes into operation when a woman is mentally incapable of giving valid consent. The Board requires a number of documents—birth certificate, a biography and a certificate from the physician. The biography has to be fairly full, and is compiled by social workers. There are in existence in Sweden abortion counsellor centres and other social agencies where the fullest possible data can be obtained. If we had a panel of this kind, it would be desirable to associate its operation with such centres. The questions of parents, childhood environment, education, finances, housing and health are all gone into, and provision is made for visits in the home by social workers. This all shows the great lengths to which the law goes in Sweden to provide for the investigation of all these factors that here are being dealt with in the most vague and undefined terms. Social considerations will be brought in under the first Clause, which provides that total environment can be considered, in that vague phraseology which I will not burden the House with by repeating.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) asked how the Swedish Board operated, and he suggested in a second intervention that sometimes there were long delays. However, that is not my information. I am told that the Board acts swiftly, within a week of receiving documents. If there is a case which is controversial, it is dealt with by a special social psychiatric committee composed of three persons, the Chief of the Burean for Social and Forensic Psychiatry and two others appointed by the Government.

The Chief of the Bureau is assisted by two part-time psychiatrists, and there are four persons, generally gynaecologists, who take it in turns to act as chairman of the committee. In addition, other people are involved who are women experienced in social welfare, and they take turns at being the third member of the committee. There is a similar provision in more general terms in my Amendment providing for social workers to be members of the panel.

Besides considering the evidence in the documents which come before it, the committee has additional powers. It can ask medical specialists for an opinion or arrange for an examination of the applicant for an abortion.

If we had this sort of system, the further question arises of whether there should be some kind of right of appeal. There is no provision for that in my Amendment, and there is none in Sweden—[Interruption.]

Mr. John Wells

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When an hon. Member calls for order because the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) is moving very slowly down the middle of the Chamber, is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to say "Bloody impudence"?

An hon. Member

Whether he said it or not, it is true.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That was a remark which I certainly did not hear, and, as the right hon. Member for Sowerby has departed, I do not feel that I can pursue it.

Mr. David Steel

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), but may I remind him that when we discussed the Bill on Report we dealt very fully with an Amendment to appoint a panel to assess all applications for abortions. The Amendments with which we are now dealing are limited, surely, to whether a panel should be appointed to consider abortions under the term "well-being", and the main Amendment which we are discussing is whether "well-being" should or should not be in the Bill. A wide discussion on the appointment of panels has already taken place on Report.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Chair is in some difficulty, but I think it is clear from selection that Amendment No. 25 was to be debated and I do not think that at this stage I can limit the scope of the debate. Perhaps I did not hear the preceding remark, but I am listening very carefully to the hon. Member for Chelmsford and I will decide from what he says whether it is in order.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I am merely exercising my legitimate right to discuss my Amendment, which has been selected by the Chair. It may be that the Chair should not have selected it, but that is not my responsibility. I am in no way criticising the Chair, but I have been subjected to a lot of interruption and a considerable amount of provocation.

The objection to a panel or board has been raised that too many people would know about intimate medical, social and other details. I know that the Minister of State, Home Office is concerned about this. We discussed it in Committee under the heading of procedure of notification. I know that the hon. Lady and the medical profession are concerned about this, but the objection could be met, if such a board were set up, by providing in the regulations that all documents involved in these cases should be treated as confidential. That is what happens in Sweden.

The Swedish law provides that no one in any way concerned may needlessly disclose anything he knows about the case. Correspondence which might arise out of the case is also privileged and all the documents involved in consideration before the board are kept in the files of the board and are marked "secret". Only the woman who is involved may give permission for the documents to be read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have endeavoured to protect the hon. Member and to give him the right to discuss the Amendment, but his Amendment is confined to the use of a panel in matters concerning well-being. I hope that the hon. Member will confine himself to the question of well-being.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I had almost finished what I think you will find was originally a very short speech which got prolonged by constant interruptions and points of order, points of information and other points which were quite unclassifiable during my attempts to deliver it.

The general conclusion I wish to draw is that it is of great significance that a panel similar to the one I have suggested works in Sweden. The pains to which the Swedes have gone to ensure that there is no abuse of their law, which is one of the most liberal this side of the "Iron Curtain", is significant. I am sure that there is a moral here for general application to this Bill. It would have been possible had the Bill been better drafted, to introduce detailed safeguards on the lines of the Swedish model.

Sir D. Glover

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) will not be cross when I tell him that if his two Amendments go to Divisions, I shall be in the opposite Lobby and unable to support him. Despite what he has said, it is very important when dealing with a matter as intimate as this to have at little publicity as possible. It is all very well to say that all the documents would be marked "secret" and "confidential", but in the last fortnight we have had debates and Questions concerning what happens about D Notices. It is possible that things which are confidential on security grounds can get out.

My information, which I put forward with a great deal of humility because I have not anything like the knowledge that my hon. Friend has, is that there is a considerable amount of delay in Sweden because of this rather bureaucratic administrative machine. What is even more disturbing in my information is that as a result in Sweden there is just as much back-street abortion as there was before abortion was legalised. Taking all these things into account, I said in a previous speech how worried I was about doctors having to take social considerations into account. The Bill will now not ask them to do that to anything like the same extent. Therefore, I do not think that my hon. Friend made out the case for having this panel of experts.

What we want to achieve under the Bill is that a person who can genuinely justify that a baby should be aborted will not be in an atmosphere when she will be frightened to take steps to terminate the pregnancy. What would inevitably happen as a result of having a panel of experts would be that the simpler type of person might be inhibited from going before a panel, which would be rather frightening. Because the panel would be frightening, that type of person would be much more inclined to continue to go to a back-street abortionist. Therefore, many women who even my hon. Friend would be prepared to accept probably should be aborted would not be aborted. There is a good deal of danger in my hon. Friend's proposition.

Further, even a panel of experts, who would be decent and honest people, would be bound to come from amongst the community in which people live. Many people would know which woman had been aborted and which woman had not. I do not think that would create a good social climate in the district. Far too many people going shopping would say, "There is that Mrs. So-and-So. She knows about me". It might all be confidential and secret, but there is not the same relationship between people on such a panel and the woman concerned as there is between doctor and patient. Therefore, the atmosphere, particularly in a small community, could become antisocial. I hope that my hon. Friend will not on this occasion press the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

This is the first time that I have intervened in these debates, but the morning is young. I want to say a few words in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), with whom I disagree about a number of things but never about the really important things. I particularly want to say a few words in support of Amendment No. 25 after the extraordinary outburst from an honourable and hirsute Member opposite, who suddenly popped in and who has now popped out again.

The example of Sweden has been advanced in discussing the proposal for a panel of experts. The Royal Medical Board in Sweden was discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) doubted whether this was a good precedent because of the delays which he said accompanied the work of the Royal Medical Board. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) also said that there were grave delays and that it was undesirable because of the publicity which could be attracted to the case of a woman who wanted to terminate her pregnancy.

There are these different arguments, but the House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford for drawing our attention to a very important problem, which is the qualification required when the decision to abort is reached. A number of qualifications are needed before the criteria for an abortion can be assessed. An abortion is a very fearful thing.

We are discussing this within the context of well-being. I confess that I never want to hear this word again, having sat through this entire debate, but we are discussing this in the context of well-being. The qualifications required in the decision to abort are qualifications which many medical practitioners will not possess. The qualifications required are those which might be more easily found in a psychiatrist or a social worker.

The Bill specifically refers to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, and this raises the rôle of the psychiatrist in a decision to abort. I do not think it is enough to say that if a gynaecologist comes to the view that an abortion is to be permitted this is sufficient. I do not see that the case is fully made out for a panel of exports in the way which has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, but this question of the qualifications required in a decision to abort is something which is troubling me, and it is something to which the House should address itself more thoroughly.

Mr. McNamara

I intend to make only a short contribution to the debate, because many of the points have been made by various speakers.

I think that one should disagree wholeheartedly with some of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Ormskirk. I think that he has built a strange sort of Walter Mitty aura about himself, when one considers what his hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford is trying to achieve. I think that one of the essential facts to remember is that we are trying to lift the burden from the doctor when he is not qualified to make the decision. It is as simple as that. There are circumstances in which a psychiatrist or a social worker knows more about the total environment, which remains in the Bill, and is almost equivalent to well-being. Such a person can examine the situation for the woman who is asking for her pregnancy to be terminated, and I think that this is worthy of more consideration on the Floor of the House.

I am opposed to the Bill in principle, but, nevertheless, I think that we are entitled to suggest methods by which it can be improved, while still respecting the wishes of the House to get the Measure through. I hope, therefore, that enough has been said to get a reasoned reply, if this is necessary, and I think it is, from the Government, and perhaps some Amendments will be introduced in another place which might go some way to meet the situation which we are discussing here.

Mr. John Wells

I am attracted to the idea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) about a panel of experts, but he specifically mentioned the Swedish model a number of times during his speech, and I feel compelled to put one or two questions to him about his personal practical experience of the working of the Swedish Health Service.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Do not bother.

Mr. Wells

I am speaking not only of this section of it, but of the Health Service as a whole. I am delighted to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health here. He is well aware of the shortage of staff in our Health Service, but ours is affluent with staff compared with its Swedish counterpart, this wonderful notional model which my hon. Friend has put before us and told us how wonderfully it works. This is just not so in practice, and this is one reason why two of my hon. Friends have referred to the continuing large number of back-street abortions which take place in Sweden, despite this wonderful theoretical pattern.

6.15 a.m.

If we ask for a panel of experts—and it is an attractive idea—the two Ministers present will both say that they are short of staff, they have no money to pay for such things, and so on. But, in this connection, let us consider the example of Chile, a predominantly Catholic country, unlike Sweden, which is predominantly Lutheran or agnostic. In Chile, so I am assured, no abortion is performed unless three doctors of seniority have given their view.

We were much impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), when he stressed how unsuitable it would be if two young inexperienced practitioners were permitted to cause an abortion to be performed. In Chile, by contrast, where many abortions are done, although it is a predominantly Catholic country, the operations are performed in carefully controlled circumstances, on the recommendation of an expert panel. The members of the panel are all medical men of standing and, therefore, men of experience and human understanding. I feel that such a procedure would meet the difficulty which the hon. Member for Shettleston emphasised.

Sir M. Galpern

No, I am afraid not. I would still wish to have a panel with sociological experience to assist on the question of environment.

Mr. Wells

I take that point. I understood the hon. Gentleman to refer in his speech to the great cities and, in particular, to Glasgow. I was casting my mind to Chile, which is a sparsely populated country, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford was directing his mind to Sweden, which has a mini-population compared with ours. For my part, I should be glad to accept a panel of experts, but I would prefer them to be medical, and, moreover, men of standing and experience. I have a doubt at the back of my mind about the working of the wonderful Swedish model about which we have been told.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon)

If I may say so, this has been a rather abortive discussion in that it has related to well-being. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has spoken of a panel only where well-being is under consideration. Although we have taken the reference to well-being out of one part of the Bill, we have not yet taken it out of subsection (1,a,ii), which at the moment provides: in determining whether or not there is such risk of injury to health or well-being account may be taken … and so on. That refers to the previous paragraph, from which we have now deleted the reference to well-being.

It seems to me, therefore, that we have been rather wasting our time in discussing the question, when everybody is of opinion that "well-being" should be taken out of the other parts of the Bill as it has been taken from paragraph (i).

Mrs. Knight

Bearing in mind all that we have just heard, I should point out that we are also discussing Amendment No. 40, which has nothing to do with the word "well-being". It refers to Clause 1(1,b), which deals with the risk that if the child were born it would suffer such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. It is to Amendment No. 40 that I wish to address my remarks, beginning with the situation in Sweden, to which several hon. Members have referred.

During a fairly recent visit to Sweden, I took the opportunity to find out as much as I could about the panel arrangement which is advocated in the Amendments. I came to the conclusion that the Swedish health service works the system extremely well and that its efficiency and speed of decision has a great deal to teach us. The panel goes into the matter carefully and quickly. It is wrong for hon. Members to suggest that because the system exists there the back-street abortion figures were not and are not abated because certain types of abortion are legal in Sweden. In other countries where abortion has been legalised and where there is not the panel system there is still the problem of the rise in the figures of back-street abortions.

The rejection of the earlier Amendment which sought to have as one of the two medical men deciding whether a woman should have an abortion—

Mr. W. O. J. Robinson (Walthamstow, East)

On a point of order. I shall apologise if I am wrong, but I understand that the Amendment refers to a proviso—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow the hon. Member to make his point.

Mr. Robinson

I am worried about this because I want to follow it. I understand that the Amendment refers to a proviso in Section 1(1,b) and a panel to be appointed to deal with cases arising from it. As I understand it, the only proviso is in Amendment No. 25, and I should like to know how the Amendment the hon. Lady is discussing comes within the proviso.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The debate arises on Amendment No. 17, which is to delete the word "well-being". But we are also discussing Amendment No. 25, which is also concerned with well-being, and Amendment No. 40, which, as the hon. Lady says perfectly correctly, deals with Clause 1(1,b), and which is rather wider than the Amendment concerning well-being that we discussed earlier.

Mr. Robinson

Amendment No. 40 refers to a panel to deal with matters prescribed in the proviso to Clause 1(1,b). I submit that there is no proviso to Clause 1(1,b), unless it is referred to in an Amendment which has been called.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The proviso is the one that would be inserted if the House decided to carry Amendment No. 25. The Chair is in some difficulty, but the hon. Lady has not yet said anything that I understand to be out of order.

Mrs. Knight

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These are most important matters and they should be discussed clearly in the context which we have given them on the Notice Paper.

The rejection of the Amendment which would have provided that there should be expert guidance on whether an abortion should be carried out makes Amendment No. 40 all the more important, because we should not undertake decisions of this kind without going into them very carefully. The experts referred to in Amendment No. 40 are doctors, psychiatrists and social workers. This is an important point to recognise. They would be persons well versed in the facilities available to help women in difficulties with their pregnancies. A panel of this sort might have to deal with all kinds of difficulties. The difficulty might be one of housing. A social worker on the panel would surely be able to say whether or not the difficulty facing the woman could be resolved by means available. There are plenty of remedies at the disposal of local authorities, which is very relevant when we are dealing with such a very important matter as abortion.

The difficulty in which the woman finds herself may well be that she already has an ample quiverful. If so, and if the extra work entailed in having an extra child is too much for her, a social worker would surely be able to bring in the home help service, which is there to help women in such situations. If the difficulty is financial, there are plenty of ways in which the financial difficulties of a woman who is pregnant can be resolved. If it is suggested that she may have a handicapped child, as Clause 1(1,b) visualises, the difficulty may be able to be resolved within the scope of existing facilities.

The difficulty about abortion is that if it is to be done at all, it ought to be done quickly. The early days of pregnancy are fraught with difficulty, and the woman is in a difficult emotional state when she would be a most likely candidate for abortion. Psychiatrists have said that if the woman can be helped over this period—the panel would surely offer such help—frequently the difficulty resolves itself because it is of a purely temporary nature. It is important to recognise that it is frequently a difficult period that can be got over with the help that is available.

The two doctors, which is all that we have at the moment, and will be all that we have if the Amendments are not carried, are not really capable of saying what help is available through social welfare locally because it is a very com- plicated field. There is no reason to suppose that a panel would delay matters in a disastrous way for the pregnant woman. It is important to recognise that all aids possible should be invoked before abortions are carried out.

That is why I support the Amendments. Hon. Members have had reservations about them because of the delay which they felt might be caused. I do not think that that is a valid ground. After all we are contemplating a serious action. Even the sponsors of the Bill have not tried to say that abortion is not a serious business. It is. If it is, then surely we ought to use what methods we can to avoid abortions. This is what this series of Amendments seeks to do. If we were to have a panel to give expert advice I am quite sure abortions would be fewer, and provided such a panel worked speedily I cannot see any reason why it would not be of very real and lasting benefit.

6.30 a.m.

Mr. Harold Gurden (Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I hope that my remarks will not be taken as a bit more filibustering, because this is the first time I have spoken on any occasion on this matter in the House. That is not exactly my own fault, because every time I have attempted to make some comment there has been a Motion to end the debate.

I want to support this argument which has been put forward for a panel of experts to judge these individual cases. In some cases which have come to my attention in my constituency abortions have been occasioned by pressure from the husband upon the wife when it has been discovered that an additional child is to be born into the family. I believe it to have been often the case that the woman would not herself have chosen to have had the abortion, had it not been for the pressure put upon her by her husband. Certainly he has, very often, good grounds for being annoyed—because of the home conditions, perhaps the amount of earnings, perhaps the housing conditions, or because of many other things.

However, we all know that it is often the case that a woman who is about to have a child would wish, no matter what the conditions, to avoid an abortion. I am told by doctors and social workers that it is the pressure put upon wives by the husbands which is often the cause of tremendous family trouble, and at last the wife is persuaded that an abortion should take place. This, to me, is a very good argument for a panel of experts who, I suppose, would be able to go into all the facts of the case and to discover whether or not it is the wish of the mother that the child should be born. Husbands are, of course, subject to all sorts of pressures themselves, but it is a pretty cruel thing when a husband causes trouble at home just because another child is to be born. I think that, whatever the circumstances of a revision of this law, it is essential that we have a panel of experts to go into all these matters.

On recent occasions doctors have told me that women are coming into the surgeries, at this moment, and saying that it is the law that abortion can now be obtained. They think the Bill has been passed through Parliament. Doctors are already receiving far too many inquiries from patients for abortions to take place. If we had a panel of experts the doctors would be in a much better position.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He is talking about people in the country getting a distorted view of the Bill. I cannot see how that relates to the Amendments under discussion.

Mr. Gurden

I understood that the Chair had chosen these three Amendments for debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that therefore I would be in order to discuss the work that such panels would be expected to do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in that supposition, but I understood him to be talking about the general impression in the country about the Bill and that has nothing to do with the Amendments. At least, he has so far not related it to them.

Mr. Gurden

In cases where women are going to a doctor for an abortion, it would be much better if the doctor could explain to them that there is to be set up a panel of experts who could go into the facts of the case. The doctor might not be able to know all the details.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is still somewhat wide of the Amendments. What is at issue is not what will assist the doctor at the moment but whether provision for panels should be included in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the Amendments.

Mr. Gurden

I accept your Ruling, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I support the proposition that, in the circumstances, there should be a panel of experts to go into these cases. I am sure that doctors as a whole would welcome it, whether or not they support the Bill in principle.

Mr. W. O. J. Robinson

I make no apology for rising to speak for the first time on this Bill. I have sat here practically the whole time during the night. I was interested in the arguments put by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). The idea of having a panel to assist in this matter is very attractive. But the point which I endeavoured, wrongly, to make in a point of order related to the purpose for which the panel would be appointed.

The point is that Amendment No. 40 deals with the appointment of … a panel of experts … to carry out the duties prescribed in the proviso to section 1(1)(b) … and, in order to find that proviso, I have to look at Amendment No. 25, which says: Provided that no termination shall he carried out on the ground of well-being …". These two Amendments must necessarily hang on the question of well-being, but when I turn to the Bill as amended so far, I find in Clause 1(a,i) that the word "well-being" has been removed. So, as the Bill stands, it would be illegal to terminate a pregnancy on the ground of well-being. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is putting forward an argument to establish a panel to approve what, at this stage of the Bill, would be an illegal operation.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

The point put so cogently by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. 0. J. Robinson) has already been dealt with by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I want to say a few words on the application of these panels and how effective they have proved in Sweden.

Mrs. Renée Short

The right hon. Gentleman should do his homework.

Mr. Fraser

I will read the hon. Lady some figures. It is surely common ground between us in this House that abortions should not be carried out which are not necessary to the well-being of the families involved. We all agree, I am sure, that the fewer abortions there are the better. One of the things which emerges from the Swedish system of panels is the quick check which they are able to carry out. There has been a considerable diminution in the number of abortions authorised over the years—[Interruption.]—and perhaps the hon. Member would listen to some of the figures on this point. In 1949 there were 5,000 applications, of which 89 per cent. were agreed. By 1962 the number of applications had dropped to 4,200, of which 69 per cent. were approved.

There are two points which emerge from this. One is that prior to the existence of these boards, the whole weight had been put on the two medical officers concerned and they had not looked into the cases with sufficient depth. They had not available to them the social research units and the other units on psychiatry, the units on reconciliation, and so forth.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley (Cheadle) rose—

Sir George Sinclair (Dorking) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Is the right hon. Gentleman giving way?

Mr. Hugh Fraser

I have given way to both hon. Gentlemen.

Sir G. Sinclair

Would the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for illegal abortions for this same period in Sweden, because they are germane to the figures which he has given of the cases considered by the panels.

Mr. Fraser

This is a very good point, but registered figures of illegal abortions do not exist, and they do not exist for the reason that they have been performed in secret. So far as there are figures available they show no rise.

Dr. Winstanley

Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us what percentage of these cases in Sweden were on the ground of well-being?

Mr. Fraser

That is a figure which I can give. Taking a year at random, 1958, the total abortions performed was 2,823; 1,528 were performed regarding the problem of disease, 1,432 regarding weakness, 188 anticipated weakness, 60 on humanitarian grounds, and 67 on eugenic grounds. I think those are the figures which the hon. Gentleman was so anxiously looking for.

I think that the reasons given why the Home Office was unable to give its support and help to this extremely ingenious idea which proved so successful overseas are unfortunate, if they be reasons which can be so simply adduced by the hon. Lady. If the two Amendments put forward were to be adopted, many of the doubts and fears both of the medical profession and of the general public would he removed. It is most unfortunate that these Amendments should not have been regarded with the seriousness they deserve.

Mr. Braine

I did not intend to speak in this particular debate, but I have been somewhat alarmed by the trend of argument which has developed. I think that we are in danger of being misled by what is a superficially attractive argument. I understand fully the motive behind these Amendments. They are an attempt to provide a safeguard whether the reference to "well-being" remains in the Bill or not.

Mr. Maddan

I know it is late, but the hon. Gentleman will recollect that the Amendments are in his name.

Mr. Braine

My name was put down to one of the Amendments because I was certain that there would be a mass of argument on this interesting subject and I wanted to ensure that I was called. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame".] There is no need to be indignant about it. This may have been in error and perhaps I should not have said that. When I put my name down to the Amendment I did so in good faith. I put my name down originally because I thought that Amendment No. 40 was an attractive Amendment. But I had no sooner done so than I realised that there was a snag. I took an opinion. I had no intention of exposing myself to this criticism, but throughout the passage of this Bill I have spoken as I have felt. I have spoken honestly about these matters. I found that I could not support—[Interruption]

6.45 a.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. If hon. Members want to make progress, they will not help by intervening in a sedentary position.

Mr. Braine

I understand fully the motives behind these two Amendments. Perhaps that is why I found Amendment No. 40 attractive in the first place. The Amendments provide a safeguard if the reference to "well-being" is to remain in the Bill. The argument, as I understand it, is that the question as to whether well-being may be adversely affected—well-being as opposed to health, for these two terms appear in the Bill as alternatives—is too serious a matter to leave to the two registered medical practitioners. Social factors that have no direct effect on the health of the mother are not medical factors and are not the concern of doctors. This is the thought behind all the speeches that we have heard.

This, I think, is a further illustration of the wrongheadedness of those, both the sponsors of the Bill and the Minister himself, who have rejected the considered view of the British Medical Association and of the Royal College of Physicians and Gynaecologists that one of the two registered medical practitioners should have special experience and qualifications. My hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) thought that the value of having this particular panel was that it would provide expert advice for women seeking an abortion. But this is not the case. The proposal is that there shall be a panel to whom the doctor in the case can refer.

It is a very sad commentary on the way in which this Bill has been conducted that ever since the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health spoke in Committee on the subject of qualifications, since when he has been silent, there has been no guidance from the Minister of Health upon this aspect of the matter to which the medical profession attaches such importance. The considered view of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is that these Amendments are not acceptable to them. I will say why. The House must accept the fact that we may pass an Act of Parliament which says what two registered medical practitioners may or may not do, but it will not make the slightest difference to the number of therapeutic abortions carried on outside this House—[Laughter.] It is now 10 minutes to seven. This gets better as we proceed! The Bill will not make the slightest difference to the number of therapeutic abortions carried out in National Health Service hospitals or nursing homes unless it carries the support and has the respect of the medical profession. There is nothing in the Bill which requires a medical practitioner to carry out a termination if he does not think it necessary.

I strongly suspect that the reason why the Minister of Health has been silent throughout is that he knows that the consultant gynaecologists who control the gynaecological beds in the National Health Service hospitals have been so antagonised by the Bill and by his attitude that there will be no increase, certainly initially, in the number of therapeutic abortions carried out in those hospitals.

It is, therefore, right and proper for Parliament, while not accepting everything that is suggested by the medical profession, at least to pay attention to what is said.

Mrs. Lena Jeger

May I ask when and where the British Medical Association has discussed its pronouncements on Amendments Nos. 25 and 40? With what authority does the hon. Member claim that the medical profession rejects Amendments Nos. 25 and 40, which are the only Amendments which it is in order to discuss?

Mr. Braine

I am sure that the hon. Lady wishes to make progress, and I do not wish unduly to delay the Committee. I was on the point of saying why the responsible leaders of the medical profession do not find the two Amendments acceptable. I felt it my duty—[Interruption.]—it is difficult to engage with half a dozen hon. Members opposite at the same time.

Having put my name to Amendment 40 in good faith, and having listened to the trend of the debate, I considered it my duty to rise, although earlier I had no intention of doing so, and to say that I did so mistakenly. [Interruption.] It is extremely difficult to try to address the House with a running commentary from right hon. and hon. Members in a sedentary position on the Front Bench opposite. In stark contrast to the attitude which some of them have taken throughout the Bill. We have had hardly a speech from the right hon. Gentleman. What he said about the letter in The Times is utterly misleading, and we have had no apology.

Mr. William Hamling (Woolwich, West)

On a point of order. What has the letter in The Times to do with the Amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I hope that hon. Members will listen to the debate. That is the best way of making progress.

Mr. Braine

I was merely replying to the sedentary interruptions that were coming!—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Charles Loughlin)

On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member has declared that he put his name to the Amendments for the sole purpose of being called. He is now speaking against the Amendments. Is this in order, or is it spurious sponsorship for the purpose of getting advantage?

Sir D. Glover

Further to the point of order. Is it not within the rules of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that even if an hon. Member has his name to an Amendment, that does not give him any prescriptive right to be called?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It is common practice in the House for hon. Members to put their names to Amendments for a variety of purposes. It is not the job of the Chair, because a name appears on an Amendment, to inquire into the motives of the hon. Member concerned. If he decides later to speak against the Amendment, that is perfectly in order with the Chair.

Sir J. Hobson

May I raise a point with my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine)? If one widens the criminal law and extends the area in which abortion operations can be performed, one does not simply leave it to the discretion of the doctor to deal with it, because he would be subject to civil liability. He would have to perform abortions, if required, by his medical skill.

Mr. Braine

That is so. But it does not invalidate my point. Many of us want the current practice under case law statutorily defined, and, therefore, the voice of the medical profession on this should be heeded. Bearing in mind my conversations yesterday with representatives of the profession, I was drawn to speak by some of the arguments which I heard. When the hon. Lady—who was as courteous as ever, in stark contrast to some—interrupted me, I was about to say that the profession considers that the doctor who advises on an abortion is the one who should operate.

In some circumstances, the doctor would seek not only the second opinion required by the Bill but a third. A good doctor would refer his patient to the local consultant gynaecologist, or consultant psychiatrist—if mental stress were involved—or consultant paediatrician, if other children were involved. Under a well-conducted local authority there might well be contact between the family doctor and social workers. No doctor in the House would deny that, ultimately, one of the two practitioners who advise on termination, and not a member of a panel, however eminent, would have to carry it out.

The insistence of some of my hon. Friends on experience and qualification in the two practitioners has been repeatedly rejected by the Bill's sponsors. The new suggestion of an advisory panel is not acceptable to the profession. This procedure obtains in other countries. I am not sure about Sweden, but in some countries with liberalised abortion laws, the number of illegal abortions has risen, so foreign experience is hardly our best guide.

We must consider the practical realities in this country. Hon. Members laughed earlier when I referred to the situation outside the House. The Minister knows that precious little will happen in National Health Service hospitals. He knows the shortage of gynaecological beds and the attitude of consultant gynaecologists. I want the House to recognise the realities of the situation and to accept that the B.M.A. and the Royal College have been snubbed by the sponsors of the Bill and the Minister in respect of their request that at least one of the two doctors should have specialist qualifications and experience are not likely to accept this new suggestion.

Mr. Christopher Price (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

I am interested in the hon. Member's speech and am trying to follow it, to see its relevance to Amendments Nos. 25 and 40. I know it by heart as well as he does, having heard it six or seven times in Committee. Would he explain how his remarks have relevance to Amendments Nos. 25 and 40?

Mr. Braine

I can lead the hon. Member to water but I cannot make him drink. I have carefully explained that what we do here must bear some relation to the realities outside the House. We can enact an Act of Parliament here, but it would be meaningless if we have not got the support of the doctors. We shall raise the expectations of women all over the country that there will be more therapeutic abortions. But in fact, in the present mood of the medical profession, there will be precious few, for the reasons which I have given. The proposal to have a panel to which the two doctors will go—or one of them will go—for advice is. in the view of the B.M.A., alien to our tradition of inter-professional relationships in this country. With great reluctance, therefore. I cannot support the Amendments and advise the House not to do so.

7.0 a.m.

Mr. Simon Mahon

I am not so sanguine about these Amendments as some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to be. The hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) made an interesting speech, but she made things appear far too easy when she was talking about the difficulties which face women in pregnancy. In my experience, I have never found that, when people are in great social need, help of the right kind in proportion to that need is available. I do not denigrate in any way the services to which the hon. Lady referred—the local and national health services, the housing authorities and other services, who do an excellent job, but the magnitude of the problem with which they are confronted makes it difficult for them to cope with as serious a case as this or as that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger). Such cases reach all of us. We have to have priorities, and we cannot say that we have the quantity or quality of people to help those in difficulty, bearing in mind the immediacy of the difficulty, because in this case the help is needed very quickly because of the woman's condition.

The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) gave some interesting facts and figures about the situation in Sweden. However, few figures have been given to help us to make up our minds on this issue. For example, when we talk about setting up panels of experts, it would help us if we knew the size of the problem. When speaking in the House earlier this month I presented some interesting figures. I will not weary the House by repeating what I said, except to mention that In Poland, the figure for legal abortions for every 100 live births is 23. In Yugoslavia, there are 25 legal abortions for every 100 live births. In Czechoslovakia, there are 42 legal abortions for every 100 live births. In Bulgaria, there are 53 legal abortion operations for every 100 live births". This shows the size of the problem and the figures for—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I cannot see what these figures have to do with the Amendment, which requests the setting up of panels of experts.

Mr. Mahon

If we are to establish these panels, we must know how many cases they will have to deal with. If we take a figure of 25 legal abortions per 100 births, then for our population of 54 million, there will be 150,000 per year. As I pointed out: The figure for Hungary is staggering. In a country with a population of 10¼ million, there are 123 legal abortions for every 100 live births".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd June 1967; Vol. 747, c. 502.] Nobody has really put forward these statistics in this detail. They indicate that we could have as many as 400,000 legal abortions a year.

Dr. Winstanley

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are discussing the use of a panel in relation to abortions performed for well-being? The figures he has given would not be the total numbers of abortions which would be performed on the ground of well-being.

Mr. Mahon

The hon. Gentleman may be correct, but neither he nor his hon. Friends have attempted to give the House figures showing the possible outcome of this legislation. I mentioned the figure of 400,000. The hon. Gentleman is a respected member of the medical profession and I understand that he was an adviser to the B.M.A. There are about 515 consultants in this country. There would, on the basis of my figures, be 800 cases per consultant per year. That would be an impossible situation.

I have in the past referred to Professor Jeffcoate of the Liverpool University and teaching hospitals. He points out that they might have to plan for 13,000, 150,000 or even 400,000 cases a year. It is feared that if this legislation goes through in its present form, there will be a lowering of standards in the community. People will get used to this sort of legislation, and will demand more. He also presents in proof of this the figures of recurrent abortions for unwanted pregnancies in other parts of the world.

I hope that those who suggest these panels—and, may be, the Ministry—will give U3 some information about who is to have priority. It is a question of priorities. The National Health Service does not have a bottomless purse. The establishment of the panels would have to be paid for, and they would consume the precious time of consultants and of other medical people. The induction of abortion is an urgent operation, so that the panels would have to work quickly. The operation must be carried out within a few weeks, if at all.

Division No. 414.]	AYES	[7.12 a.m.
Albu, Austen	Coe, Denis	Fraser, John (Norwood)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Freeson, Reginald
Allen, Scholefield	Crawshaw, Richard	Gardner, Tony
Archer, Peter	Davies, Dr, Ernest (Stretford)	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Armstrong, Ernest	Dell, Edmund	Goodhart, Phitip
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Digby, Simon Wingfleid	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Dobson, Ray	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)
Bagier, Cordon A. T.	Dunnett, Jack	Hamling, William
Barnes, Michael	Dunwoody, Mrs. Cwyneth (Exeter)	Haselcline, Norman
Barnett, Joel	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Beaney, Alan	Ells, John	Hooley, Frank
Bidwell, Sydney	Ensor, David	Hornby, Richard
Bishop, E. S.	Faulds, Andrew	Horner, John
Booth, Albert	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Bossom, Sir Clive	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Bray, Dr.Jeremy	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Howie, W.
Brooks, Edwin	Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Huckfield, L.
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)	Foot, Michael (Ebhw Vale)	Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Cant, R. B.	Forrester, John	Hunt, John
Carlisle, Mark	Foster, Sir John	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Carter-J ones, Lewis	Fowler, Gerry	Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&S.P'cras,S.)

Who is to have this priority treatment? Is it to be the feckless girl who has an unwanted pregnancy from time to time; or the decent married woman who is awaiting investigation, or treatment for sterility, or the woman with a positive cervical smear or symptoms that suggest a possible early cancer? I think that the House would give a very quick answer there but bearing my figures in mind, hon. Members must place these Amendments in perspective and say what is and what is not possible.

I appeal to the Minister. I feel, with other hon. Members, that the Ministry of Health could help me and other people. All I have done in the course of these debates has been to apply my small knowledge and my great interest to the benefit of the people. With great respect to the Minister, as an old friend, I think that he should be a bit more forthcoming, though he may have his own reasons for not being so. I do not suggest that this is an easy problem to deal with. It is a great new social and medical departure, and it is one that will have tremendous effects on women and children. I ask my right hon. Friend to give me, if he can, the information for which I ask.

Mr. C. Pannell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put:—

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 59.

Jenkjn, Patrick (Woodford)	Molloy, William	Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Moonman, Eric	Short, Mrs. Retiee(W'hampton,N.E)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Newenc, Stan	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Johnson, Carol (Lewitham, S.)	Norwood, Christopher	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Ogden, Eric	Snow, Julian
Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)	Oram, Albert E.	Spriggs, Leslie
Jones, T. Alee (Rhondda, West)	Orme, Stanley	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Jutld, Frank	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)	Stonehouse, John
Kerr,Dr. David (W'worth, Central)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Pardoe, John	Swingler, Stephen
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)	Park, Trevor	Taverne, Dick
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Parker, John (Dagenham)	Orwin, T. W.
Lipton, Marcus	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)	Vickers, Dame Joan
Loughlin, Charles	Pavitt, Laurence	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Luard, Evan	Price, William (Rugby)	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Lubbock, Eric	Quennell, Miss J. M.	Weitzman, David
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Reynolds, G. W.	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Richard, Ivor	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
MacCoil, James	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)	Winnick, David
MacDermot, Niall	Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)	Winstanley, Dr. M. P,
McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)	Worsley, Marcus
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Roebuck, Roy
Mayhew, Christopher	Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mendeison, J. J.	Ryan, John	Mr. Christopher Price and
Mil Ian, Bruce	Shaw, Arnold, (Ilford, S.)	Sir George Sinclair.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Sheldon, Robert

NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Monro, Hector
Alldritt, Walter	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Murton, Oscar
Biggs-Davison, John	Hunter, Adam	Oakes, Gordon
Black, Sir Cyril	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Oswald, Thomas
Braine, Bernard	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Crowder, F. P.	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Percival, Ian
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Kimball, Marcus	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Delargy, Hugh	Kitson, Timothy	Small, William
Dempscy, James	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Dunn, James A.	Lever, L. M. (M'chstr, Ardwick)	Tinn, James
English, Michael	McBride, Neil	Ward, Dame Irene
Fortescue, Tim	Macdonald, A. H.	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Galpern, Sir Myei	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Giimour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Glover, Sir Douglas	Maddan, Martin	Wright, Esmond
Gurclen, Harold	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Marten, Neil	Sir Knox Cunningham and
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Maude, Angus	Mr. R. Grant-Ferris.

Question, That "or well-being" stand part of the Bill, put accordingly and negatived.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 1, line 18, to leave out 'substantial risk' and to insert 'certainty'.

Mr. David Steel

On a point of order. Earlier I suggested that certain Amendments should be grouped together, but the House disagreed. I think that the House might regret that decision. May I suggest that with Amendment No. 20 we should discuss Amendment No. 21, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'substantial risk' and insert 'probability'.

Mr. Speaker

What Amendments are selected is a matter for the Chair. If later there is a proposed grouping from the Floor that can be done if the hon. Member has leave of the House. Is it your wish that Amendment No. 20 and Amendment No. 21 be discussed together? [HON. MEMBERS: "No" The hon. Member has not that leave.

Sir D. Glover

I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am not prepared to accept that Motion.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) cannot be here. I am therefore moving this Amendment on his behalf as well as my own as we are co-sponsors of it. We come now to one of the most important debates on the whole Bill, that on subsection (b) of Clause 1, which is the eugenic paragraph. This paragraph is quite different in principle from the others. It provides for abortion if there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped". A different principle is invoked here. The other paragraphs of the Clause allow abortion on grounds of necessity. It is quite different to propose to allow abortion on eugenic grounds.

Had it been possible, I would have preferred to have deleted the Clause entirely. It is not possible to do that, so instead of ending the Clause, we seek to amend it to improve it in some way. The purpose of the Amendment is to tighten up the Clause, to restrict its application, and so, as far as we are able, to get rid of its worst effects. For the words "substantial risk" the Amendment would substitute the concept of certainty, and in this way it would restrict the operation of the Clause to a minimum of circumstances. This would be in accord with the wishes of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, 2nd the Bishop of Durham, who expressed their views in a letter published in The Times on 24th May, 1967, and which is one of the most authoritative statements on this part of the Bill coming from a Christian source.

In the course of this letter, in which the writers consider the scope of the Bill in general and suggest various amendments and improvements, they deal with this particular provision and say this: Sub-Clause (b) in Clause 1(1) dealing with the risk of a deformed or defective foetus first centres the decision on the foetus in isolation and then makes the decision to terminate depend not upon actual diagnosis of deformity or defect but upon statistical risk. It thus follows not only that in order to destroy one defective foetus there is a risk of destroying healthy foetuses as well, but also that the decision would be made without diagnosis of a particular foetus, and indeed without any particular diagnosis at all. We think this is too large an invasion of the principle of the value of life to be justified, and we are driven to the view that the case of the risk to the foetus ought to be treated in terms of the risk to the mother, the mother and the foetus being in this way considered together. That is a most important statement coming from what I suppose is the highest moral authority in this country.

It is vitally important that the Clause should contain clear and unambiguous wording, otherwise, unless the Clause is clear, the inevitable result of its passing into law will be the risk of the slaughter of thousands of potentially healthy children to avoid the birth of a few deformed ones. The words "substantial risk" mean very little. We heard in debates on previous Amendments what a very indefinable term "risk" is. What is the distinction between a risk and a substantial risk? I hope that we can hear something on this from the promoter of the Bill. I am rather amazed that he is not here. I know he has been very assiduous in his attendance.

Mr. Lubbock

Come off it.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

We have been here. [HON. MEMBERS: "So have we"] I know that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has been assiduous in his attendance, but there is a principle involved in this provision which to many of us who are critical of the Bill is more important than any other single principle involved in the Bill.

Dr. Winstanley

I have undertaken to reply to this set of Amendments on behalf of the sponsors of the Bill. I have discussed the Amendments very fully with my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will get a proper answer to what we regard as very serious points.

7.30 a.m.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I am very grateful for that courteous intervention. The Amendment seeks to substitute the word "certainty" for "substantial risk". Some moralists find this acceptable because the balance that is being made thereby is between a 100 per cent. certainty of physical deformity against the right to life. If the word "certainty" is inserted into the Clause, there is no risk of the destruction of healthy children, of healthy foetuses, as the price of preventing the birth of a deformed one.

From the moral point of view I do not accept that argument. I merely put it forward as an argument which is acceptable to some people. I do not find it morally acceptable because I take the view that if one is faced with deformity, one should not blot it out. One should treat it as a challenge to provide care for it, not just get rid of it, and we have the example of the thalidomide children. Anyone who has seen them, and seen what has been done for them, and seen the happy lives they are living, knows how much can be done.

When it comes to a question of one's own convenience being involved, one should hesitate and examine one's own interest before taking any action, and the question which everyone has to raise when it comes to the point of blotting out deformity is "Whose suffering is being relieved? Is it the suffering of the person who has the deformity?"

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is a bigger question than that raised by the Amendment.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to set it in this wider context.

If certainty is unacceptable, one has to fall back on the word "risk", which is present in the Clause, and this raises the extremely important question of how predictable actual deformity is. This is a question on which I hope we shall hear the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley). I hope that he will speak to this with all the authority of his great medical knowledge, because this is a matter on which the House needs expert advice so that hon. Members can reach a reasonable decision on it.

I am not a doctor, but I have been to some pains to investigate the medical evidence on this, and my conclusion is that the chances of diagnosing a deformity are poor. The best estimate that I can get from medical authorities is that anything from three to five foetuses would have to be sacrificed to prevent the birth of one deformed child. If this is so, a very heavy responsibility rests on a doctor in carrying out an abortion for eugenic purposes.

On this question of predictability I want to look at the question of diseases which are most likely to result in the birth of a deformed child. The most common case is where the mother contracts rubella during the early stages of a pregnancy. One has to consider here not only the actual effect of the disease through the mother on the foetus, but the effect of the disease on the psychological and emotional life of the mother, and therefore the effect upon the foetus. Rubella can be diagnosed fairly easily, but there is still a considerable element of uncertainty as to what the effect will be upon the foetus, and whether the deformity from which the foetus suffers will be recoverable given adequate medical treatment.

Once one leaves the example of rubella, one finds that other deformities are extremely difficult to diagnose before birth. From among those which can be diagnosed, I cite the two examples of anencephaly and gross hydrocephaly, which cannot be diagnosed before the 32nd week, which is late in the pregnancy. In any case, deformities in this category are really incompatible with human life as such, and the chances are that such a child would either be born dead or would be a monster in the strict sense of the term, that is, a living being but one bearing no real relation to a human being.

I mention two other diseases which come into this problem of deformity, Huntingdon's chorea and muscular dystrophy. In the case of muscular dystrophy, for example, there is a 50 per cent. chance that the foetus may be born deformed, but the difficulty here, as I understand it from my medical friends, is that this is a disease which is very difficult to diagnose during pregnancy.

I have dealt in some detail with particular diseases and the likelihood of deformity, and I am sure that the House will welcome an authoritative and, I hope, objective assessment from the hon. Member for Cheadle when he replies. This whole question is complicated, when one considers the Clause and the delicate balance sought to be established by it between the value of life and deformity, in that one has to consider not only the degree of risk of deformity but also the degree of anxiety on the part of the mother. These are related but distinct issues. What is really important is the risk of deformity to the foetus, and this should he made as objectively assessable as possible.

Now, the other Amendment, No. 23, which would substitute "complete handicap" for "serious handicap". This, again, is a question of degree, and I wish to make plain once more that I do not myself wish to be a party to this sort of balancing, regarding it as quite abhorrent. But there are those who take a different view, so one must try to use terms capable of definition which will make that balance as delicate and as objective as possible. The term "complete handicap" is preferable to "serious handicap" because it is a more objective term and it requires a higher degree of deformity to be taken into account in the balance of considerations.

I have spoken briefly on the Amendment. My own position is that I would much rather see the Clause out of the Bill. Indeed, if the Clause were taken out, a great deal of my objection to the Bill would go with it.

Mr. Orme

That is difficult to understand. The hon. Gentleman has opposed the Bill throughout this whole debate. What does he mean by saying that, if this one Clause were out, he would support the Bill?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I had three objections to the Bill. One was the question of well-being—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is being tempted into going completely out of order.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Virtue has prevailed, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I am not allowed to yield to temptation.

All that I can do is to ask the hon. Gentleman to believe that this is the part of the Bill about which I feel most strongly. Other hon. Members feel more strongly about other parts, but this is the part that is most abhorrent to me.

If one approached the Bill in a hardhearted way, it would be much more acceptable to allow the child to be born to see if it were deformed, and then to take the decision whether to rid oneself of it after having the opportunity of assessing the degree of deformity. After all, if we look at the matter logically and coldly that would be the much more reasonable and sensible course. It would eliminate all the risk of destroying potentially healthy babies that there is when one makes a diagnosis knowing that there is perhaps only one chance in three of being right. When the matter is put in that way, we recoil in horror and revulsion. But that is not because there is any qualitative difference between the removal of a deformed foetus before birth and the removal of a deformed child after birth.

The difference is imaginative, and it is significant that the second situation strikes our imaginations more forcibly. We should proceed by some kind of reasoning and see that the arguments of logic which apply to the second situation also apply to the first.

Dr. Winstanley

It might be helpful to hon. Members wishing to speak later if I give the sponsors' attitude to the Amendments at this stage. I shall try to be brief, but I recognise that we have reached a crucial part of the Bill, that there is a substantial division of opinion on this point, and that opinions are strongly held. I also recognise that points of substance have been put and should be answered. Having said that, I should make it clear that the sponsors regard this subsection as vital. We believe that the Bill would be very seriously damaged if it were weakened or destroyed.

There is a lot of doubt about the existing state of the law. I think that there are very few people in this country, whether they are supporters or opponents of the Bill, who are prepared to regard the present state of the law on termination of pregnancy as wholly satisfactory. But there is one aspect of the law that is utterly clear. That is that it does not at present, whether in case law or Statute law, in any way provide for the termination of a pregnancy on the grounds of the potential deformity or abnormality of the child.

I acknowledge that from time to time pregnancies are terminated on these grounds, but that is done by finding a way round the existing law, perhaps by arguing that the termination is done for another reason. The fact remains that pregnancies are terminated on these grounds and that the law does not at the moment provide for it. The first thing that we have to decide is whether we want it to be provided for or not, but we must assert that it is not provided for at the moment.

7.45 a.m.

Much has been said in our discussions about the attitude of the medical profession. There are obviously—we all fully understand it—many shades of opinion within the medical profession. There are doctors holding quite opposite points of view. But in so far as one can assess official opinion—in this connection we usually quote bodies such as the British Medical Association Special Committee or the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists—there is no doubt that those two bodies are in favour of this aspect of the matter being clarified and laid down clearly in the law.

They feel that doctors at the moment taking steps which they sometimes feel to be necessary are in jeopardy because of the lack of clarity in the law. They feel that the matter should be cleared up and the profession safeguarded. That is the informed medical opinion, that of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) will be joining me on this point.

Let us accept, too, that none of the sponsors regards this as a desirable procedure for a moment. But we argue that from time to time it is a necessary procedure, limited in number—and, it is important to emphasise, limited even in relation to the total number of potentially malformed or abnormal babies. It is necessary to remind the House from time to time—it should be completely clear—that the intention of the Bill is to state what shall not be unlawful if it be done on the opinion and advice of two registered medical practitioners acting in good faith.

This states what shall not be unlawful if it is done—if it has to be done at all. In every case the duty of the medical practitioners should be, wherever possible to encourage aid and support the mother towards term with the pregnancy. Nevertheless, there are cases—they have arisen in my experience and, I am sure, in the experience of every doctor, if to a limited extent—in which one feels that this is the only possible course to adopt.

In deciding what course to adopt, it is necessary for the doctors concerned, as in so many of these matters, to have regard to the whole situation. So, while the subsection deals with the state of the foetus, whether it is likely to be seriously deformed, nevertheless a decision as to whether to recommend a termination of the pregnancy will be taken in relation to the circumstances as a whole. In other words, if there is a probability—put it as high as that—that a given foetus may be born seriously handicapped, the doctor will assess the temperament and psychology of the mother and the father and will have to assess the manner in which they will be able to cope with the situation. They may find that the mother is of a temperament, of a type and character, on whom this would put very considerable strain, and it may be argued that this should be dealt with on the question of her health. As the foetal condition is such an important factor in the matter, it ought to be specifically provided for.

There is no doubt that there are parents who face up to this possibility, the mother goes through to term and has an abnormal child, and she looks after it, copes with it and brings up other children and the situation never arises. On the other hand, there are cases which crop up from time to time in which the very reverse happens.

I should like to refer—I think it is relevant—to a case which came under my control and for which I was in part responsible for a time. This was some time ago now when, perhaps, our knowledge was not quite so advanced as it is now. This was a mother who had already two children. She suffered from German measles extremely early in the pregnancy. I will come to that point later, because I have been asked about it. Therefore, there was a strong probability that this child would be born abnormal. She was referred for consideration of the termination of this pregnancy. Termination, after due consideration, was not carried out, and she was encouraged one way and another to continue with the pregnancy. Her anxiety and apprehension increased, particularly towards the later period of the pregnancy, and this is important because there comes a time when termination ceases to be a practical propostion, because the pregnancy is too far advanced.

Ultimately, she was delivered of the child. The child was born blind, deaf, mentally defective, and had spastic paralysis. This woman had a nervous breakdown and was later admitted to hospital and was under care for some time. Her husband, who, unfortunately, was not the most helpful and reliable of persons, was of no great assistance, and it is was necessary for the other two children to go for a time into the care of the local authority.

This family was virtually destroyed by an event which, I believe—and I say most sincerely to hon. Members who, I know, feel strongly about this matter—could have been prevented.

I know that this carries with it—let us face up to this—the risk that occasionally a perfectly normal baby will be destroyed. Let us make no bones about it. I accept this. I accept that this is a possibility, and on that very point the hon. Member for Chelmsford has suggested—and there is logic in the suggestion—that since this is a possibility let us not intercede at this early stage but let us let the pregmancy reach its conclusion so that we can really know, and then do something which is virtually infanticide. There is logic in the argument.

I ask the hon. Member to consider that this mother who could be helped, in the early stage, must face anxiety and apprehension, which mounts and mounts during the pregnancy. She does not know whether she will get a baby which will make her very happy or one which will make her very sad. This is the point. It is the waiting period with ever-increasing strain which does the damage. One can avoid it only by termination early in the pregnancy.

With regard to the assessment of the degree of risk, all I can say is that knowledge of this is not clear yet by any means, but we do have certain criteria upon which we can make certain judgments by which we can have some certainty. We know, for example, that if German measles, probably the commonest of the infections concerned, comes within the first two or three weeks after conception, there is a probability bordering on a virtual certainty of abnormality.

But it is true that as time passes the risk declines at a fairly rapid rate, and I accept that once we get past the third month or about the fourteenth week, it ceases to be a probability and then becomes a possibility which declines as time advances. It would be wrong for me to attempt to be precise. Figures have been given in papers which have been pub- lished by a number of workers, but they give slightly different figures.

Something has been said about the possibility of diagnosis. This is important. Radiological methods are not helpful till it is too late. There are other tests, by the amniotic fluid, and so on, which give reliable evidence on which one can base a firm, or fairly firm, prediction. This would satisfy the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) because he would feel that we could say with certainty. But we are not in that position of being able to say with certainty. We can only make predictions.

Mr. Michael McGuire (Ince)

Can the hon. Gentleman say how far tests of the unborn are able to determine not merely whether the child is likely to be born blind or deaf or mentally deficient, but whether it will be born with missing limbs but with a brain functioning perfectly?

Dr. Winstanley

No precision can be applied to this at all. Early tests cannot reveal anything of that kind except on a statistical basis, which is not the test the hon. Gentleman means. We are only able to say that certain kinds of abnormality result from certain diseases or circumstances.

We are still in a situation of uncertainty. I accept that and all the limitations which surround it. But I ask the House to understand that it is necessary to have this provision in the Bill both for the protection of members of the medical profession, who are at present doing this in good faith because they believe it necessary, and also for the very real relief of human suffering.

Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip-Northwood)

One has heard it said in responsible quarters that, to prevent the advent of a seriously handicapped child, between three and five healthy children would probably be destroyed. Do those figures mean anything?

Dr. Winstanley

The hon. and learned Gentleman is asking for blanket figures. They will vary according to the kind of criteria applied by different workers and according to different types of patient. In other words, one does not make the decision purely on a statistical probability but on what is going to happen if the woman has an abnormal child. Once she has it, what the particular risk was before is of no great moment to her.

But I accept the implication of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. There is this possibility. One hopes to keep it to the minimum. The usual procedure is for the doctor to give help and support and try to assist the family to have the child, cope with it and understand that it is an event which need not be tragic. But if doctors in good faith come to the conclusion that the result of a pregnancy in these circumstances would be catastrophic to the family, if not specially to the health of the woman—

Mr. Simon Mahon

I am loath to intervene in the hon. Gentleman's interesting speech, but I would draw his attention to an article in The Lancet as recently as 1st January, 1966. It was called "The Paediatrician and the Termination of Pregnancy". It states: Of 270 children born after infection in the first 16 weeks of pregnancy, 157 survived without defect and 37 with minor defects. 16 children died in the first 2 years of life but only 8 of these were malformed. There were 11 spontaneous abortions, 6 therapeutic abortions having been excluded from the series. 14 children were lost to follow-up. 33 only had serious abnormality.

8.0 a.m.

Dr. Winstanley

Those figures do not help because they cover the period up to the 16th week and I have acknowledged that from becoming a virtual certainty during that time it becomes a probability and then a possibility.

When one talks about the possibility of a child not being born which might be a healthy child, I want the House to remember another possibility. It is my experience, and that of other doctors, that a woman who has been persuaded against her will to continue a pregnancy and then bears an abnormal deformed child seldom becomes pregnant again. The experience may be such that she will not under any circumstances become pregnant again. It is my experience that with the woman who does have a termination of pregnancy the very first thing she wants to do afterwards is to become pregnant again and have a family. I have seen families born which would never have been born had relief not been allowed under this clause.

I hope that the House will not support this Amendment. I do not think that it would be helpful in any way—even from a terminalogical point of view.

Mr. Ian Percival (Southport)

The hon. Gentleman said that this is the most important part of the Bill and what he has endeavoured to do is to give us the view of the sponsors of the intention behind the Clause and the manner in which it operates and the sort of evidence which would be available. Could he complete this process, because there is one other element of the operation of this Clause upon which he has not yet touched?

Does the hon. Gentleman say that if the matters stipulated in his sub-paragraph are established and the woman wishes to have an abortion, it will be the duty of the doctors to perform the abortion, or does he say that there will still be some residual discretion in the doctors? If so, on what criteria are they to operate? I think that he would agree that without answering this question we do not have the complete picture.

Dr. Winstanley

I cannot answer the question as completely as the hon. Gentleman would like, but I will do my best. Most certainly there is a residual discretion. The two doctors acting in good faith may think that a certain thing will not be unlawful if they decide it should be done. There will be many circumstances in which they will decide it should not be done and there will be other circumstances in which they will decide that it should. I regret that medicine is not the exact science which the hon. Gentleman would like. These are the kind of decisions which doctors have to make and they will be happy to make them if they have the authority to do so.

Sir J. Hobson

The doctor will have to have a great deal of knowledge as to the risks, because he could be subject to an action for negligence if he failed properly to perform the operation and a deformed child was born, so that in cases of doubt there will be substantial pressure on the doctor by the civil law for the operation to be performed.

Dr. Winstanley

I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to answer his own questions on the law rather than ask me, but I am glad to assist if he wishes. If a doctor acting in good faith comes to the conclusion that the course he recommends is in the best interests of the patient, I doubt whether he would ever find himself in difficulties with the law.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

Order. I understand that it was suggested at an earlier stage by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) that Amendment No. 21 should be discussed together with the Amendment now under consideration, but objection was taken.

I should point out to the House that in the event of Amendment No. 20 being negatived and the words "substantial risk" remaining in the Bill, it would not be open to the House to proceed to debate Amendment No. 21 which also raises the point whether "substantial risk" should be left out.

Therefore, I think that it would be more for the convenience of the House if Amendment No. 21 were discussed together with this Amendment.

Mr. John M. Temple (City of Chester)

On a point of Order. Is it not a little unusual to change the order of selection after the hon. Member who said he was in charge of the Bill has spoken? He has given his views on the Amendment and presumably he would have given his views on the Amendments together had they been selected together. However, as I understand the rules of the House, he is now precluded from doing that, because he cannot speak again when the House has reached this stage of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I understand that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill has not spoken on this Amendment. Therefore, that point of order does not arise.

Mr. Temple

On a point of order. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said that he was speaking on behalf of the hon. Member who was in charge of the Bill, so at that moment of time I presume that he was the Member in charge of the Bill, because he is dealing with it for his hon. Friend.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think that I can simplify this. I do not think that that point arises, because the hon. Member who has just spoken was opposing the Amendment. Therefore, his opposition to the Amendment is equally valid in respect of Amendments Nos. 20 and 21. The only point at issue is what the position would be if the Amendment were carried. If it were carried, it would be open to the House to consider whether the word "certainty" or the word "probability" should be inserted. In the event of this Amendment being negatived, there would be no opportunity for proceeding to discuss Amendment No. 21. Therefore, I thought it right to draw attention to that fact.

Sir Knox Cunningham

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If Nos. 20 and 21 are taken together, can there be a vote on each?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Certainly. In the event of Amendment No. 21 being carried it would be open to the House to proceed to decide whether the word "certainty" or the word "probability" should be substituted for the words in the Bill. But in the event of Amendment No. 20 being negatived, no further question would arise because the House would have decided that the words "substantial risk" should remain. Therefore, any hon. Member who wishes to speak to this Amendment is entitled to argue, if he is in support of the Amendment, whether he prefers to substitute the word "certainty" or the word "probability".

Mr. Hogg

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I only intervene to be helpful. I would suggest, if it is open to the House, that the two Amendments might be discussed together. If they are not, the probability is that the second Amendment will not be discussed at all. I feel, with respect to my hon. Friends, that the House would wish to have before it the arguments relevant to both. This is the only way that I can see, within the rules of order, of achieving that result.

Mr. Charles Doughty (Surrey, East)

On a point of order. The selection list which I hold in my hand says that Amendment No. 21 has been selected, plus Amendment No. 26, in page 1, line 20, at the end to insert: (ii) in determining whether or not there is such a probability, a child shall be deemed to be seriously handicapped if it would be so mentally sub-normal as to be incapable of being educated by a local education authority and it would be so physically sub-normal as to be incapable of existence otherwise than in a hospital or similar institution. In view of what you have said, that Amendment No. 21 will be dropped if No. 20 is negatived, I presume that when we proceed with the next Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 26, but not No. 21 because it seeks to insert words at the end of the subsection which could properly be inserted, assuming that Amendment No. 20 is negatived. Therefore, the position, I submit, is that at the conclusion of discussing these Amendments and No. 21, we can proceed to discuss Amendment 26.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. Just as Amendment No. 23 was selected for discussion with No. 20, in the same way No. 26 was selected for discussion with No. 21. What is now suggested is that all four Amendments should be discussed at the same time.

Sir Knox Cunningham

If Amendment No. 21 is discussed now with Amendment No. 20, what will happen? Will my hon. Friend be able to make a speech on that? Will the hon. Gentleman who has already spoken also be able to speak on this again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

No, there will no opportunity for a second speech on this. I observe that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who has already spoken, is a signatory to Amendment No. 20 on which he has addressed the House. He did not, in fact, sign Amendment No. 21.

Mr. Gurden

On a point of order. I am not clear about Amendment No. 30, in page 2, line 5, to leave out 'formed in good faith' and to insert: 'based on reasonable grounds'.

I understand what you said about speaking to these Amendments, but, as I see it, there is a distinct difference between the word "certainty" and the word "probability" here. I should have thought that you would rule that there could be a vote. I was not clear what your answer was to that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

There is certainly a difference between "certainly" and "probability". It is obvious that of those hon. Members who wish to delete "substantial risk", some would prefer to insert "certainty" and others would prefer to insert "probability". They can argue both propositions in the course of this debate. If the House decides that "substantial risk "should remain, no further Question arises. There would be no opportunity or point in a subsequent Division.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I follow the logic of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but may I put this point without in any way intending any discourtesy to the Chair? Had your Ruling been given earlier on this matter, and had the Amendments then been taken together, I would have been able to address myself to both Amendments. When the matter was put to the House, there was objection from a large number of hon. Members and we proceeded on the assumption that there would be two separate discussions. By your Ruling being given late, however, you have deprived me of a chance of speaking to the second Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member is in a special position. He moved the Amendment. Therefore he, and he alone, will have a right of reply on the Amendment. Therefore, he is not deprived of any rights by the Ruling which I have given.

Sir J. Hobson

Further to the point of order. I wished earlier to exercise a right of reply, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but owing to the operations of the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) I did not have the opportunity. What happens if a Member is closured before getting a chance to reply?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That does not arise on this point of order

Sir M. Galpern

We have had to devote a little time to the points of order. Had Amendment No. 18, which would have deleted paragraph (b), been called, it would have helped many hon. Members. Nevertheless, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one accepts the Ruling which you have given from the Chair.

The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) has presented a fair and honest case in support of the paragraph. The effect that it had upon me was to confirm my opposition to the whole Clause. The hon. Member has confirmed and underlined all the doubts that exist in hon. Member's minds. He admits readily that normal, healthy embryos will be destroyed as a result of the Clause. He admits that there is difficulty in diagnosing the conditions of abnormality. The hon. Member has highlighted every facet of the problem that worries us. Surely, it would be more reasonable to have the odd malformed child than take the risk of killing a normal foetus.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

Will the hon. Member recognise that the whole burden of the case put by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) was not the risk of birth of a malformed child, but damage to the health of the mother due to fear of the risk of a malformed child? That is quite different from the defence of the Clause which has customarily been advanced by those who support it.

Sir M. Galpern

I was coming to that. The case which the hon. Member puts, and which was argued by the hon. Member for Cheadle, is covered by the Bill. There is no need for the Amendment. As paragraph (a,i) states that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. the case is already covered.

The hon. Member presented only one case, although it was a harrowing story, and this problem is already dealt with in the Bill. Therefore, when an embryo might be healthy or malformed, it is argued that we should take the risk of killing a healthy child. It is unfair for the hon. Member or any doctor to say that a healthy child should face the possibility of being killed through a faulty diagnosis, and I would rather the risk were the other way.

8.15 a.m.

Many people support termination of pregnancy in the interests of the mother's physical and mental health, but strongly oppose killing a foetus because of the obvious difficulties. Who will determine the risk, for instance? This is not stated. What will be the degree of malformation? What is "seriously" malformed? The hon. Member admitted that diagnosis, particularly of mental malformation, is difficult, and this must be true of diagnosing "serious" malformation. How will interpretation vary between different medical practitioners? There are some cases of not very serious malformation.

When I was Lord Provost of Glasgow I had the privilege to give occasional parties for physically and mentally handicapped children, which were some of the happiest and most satisfying days of my tenure of office. About 400 or 500 parents attended, also, some with more than one child, and when asked, they immediately refuted any idea that they were under any strain because their children were abnormal. I saw love and affection and devotion between a mother and her malformed child, which was sometimes deeper even than that between a mother and her normal child—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

I was also in Glasgow at the time that the hon. Gentleman was Lord Provost. Does he remember the example of one of our colleagues who, although greatly physically handicapped, gave great service to the city and inspiration in the same way as the children who inspired the hon. Member?

Sir M. Galpern

I know of many such cases. My most lasting memory is of the complete devotion between mother and child. Many hon. Members have witnessed this devotion, so how can they reasonably argue that we should take a gamble—this is what it would be—to enable a medical practitioner to take the life of a similarly disabled child? There is a mental strain and stress when the medical practitioner has to acquaint the mother that she may give birth to a malformed child, but in many cases the mother has an entirely different outlook once the child is born from that when she approaches the termination of her pregnancy.

I regret that we have not the opportunity to delete this subsection. The hon. Member for Cheadle said that a failure to legalise a situation which doctors already operate would bring them into legal difficulty. But they have been able to circumvent the law—let them continue to do so without our giving them a legal protection which does not appear necessary, and certainly without our giving them a blanket defence to anything done under the subsection. On his own admission, what needs to be done is being done at present. If, as a result of widening the practice, it led to the killing of a healthy child, then we ought not to be parties to such a provision.

We are asking that the community should accept responsibility for these physically and mentally handicapped children. Among the many offices which I hold is that of chairman to a home in Glasgow for mentally and physically handicapped. It is most pleasant to go there and to contribute a little sympathy and help, although at times the parents do not welcome it. We help as far as we can to provide the parents with relief in holidays, taking the children in for short periods while the parents have a break. It is an inspiration and challenge to us all that we have these mentally and physically handicapped, and the community ought to accept the challenge.

The medical profession have done remarkable work in minimising the deficiency of the mentally or physically handicapped. Long should that continue. I hope that we shall modify the subsection to ensure the greatest degree of care before we empower the medical practitioners to engage in the termination of any embryo which might ultimately be malformed.

Sir Knox Cunningham

On a point of order. Are we discussing Amendments Nos. 21 and 26.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is so.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

I was a little shaken by the speech of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley). As, I imagine, have many hon. Members, I have been following the course of the debate as it proceeded in Committee. One had referred over and over again to this Clause as the eugenics Clause. I had, perhaps erroneously, assumed that it was a Clause which was intended primarily to enable the prevention, where the mother so wished, of the birth of a child whose life, if it lived, was likely to be so severely handicapped that it would not be worth living. I assumed that it was with this in mind that the sponsors of the Bill were proposing its inclusion.

This was not the argument on which the hon. Member for Cheadle rested his case for the rejection of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) rightly pointed out, the case adduced by the hon. Member for Cheadle would be entirely covered.

Dr. Winstanley

I was not advancing a case. I was endeavouring to answer some points contained in the case which the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) had advanced.

Mr. Jenkin

This is totally irrelevant to this argument. The hon. Member for Shettleston pointed out that if that argument was the basis for the inclusion of the Clause, then the point is adequately covered by an earlier provision.

I say that the argument is irrelevant because if what is aimed at is the prevention of fear and apprehension, leading to illness on the part of the mother, then the medical degree of probability is far less relevant. Clearly, the mere fact that she has had, say, rubella some time in the first 16 weeks of pregnancy may be enough to set up a degree of anxiety which would give rise to all the unhappy consequences which were graphically described. Because of the likelihood of this being allayed by the medical advisers on the ground that it is a low degree of probability, is not very great.

If that is the argument, then I cannot see why the Clause is in the Bill. I have not been satisfied by the remarks of the hon. Member for Cheadle—or by what he did not say—about what I believe is still, in many hon. Members' minds, the prime purpose of the Clause; the prevention of malformed and severely handicapped births.

The question of the degree of likelihood is obviously a highly technical medical matter. Indeed, it is on this aspect of the Bill, perhaps more than any other, that I have had the greatest sympathy with those who have argued that this whole matter requires thorough medical investigation before the House should be asked to legislate. These factors will weigh heavily with a number of hon. Members when they consider whether or not they can support the Measure on Third Reading.

When considering the Amendment, one must consider how far, in the present state of medical knowledge, it is possible to say with any degree of certainty—absolute, probable or likely—that a malformed child is likely to be born. I have looked carefully into the question of the likelihood of malformation. There seems to be some relationship between, for example, the thalidomide syndrome; not so much in that the drug caused the malformation but that it prevented the premature ejection of the child that was malformed, and resulted in the birth of a child which would not otherwise have been born.

One is, therefore, dealing with extremely complicated medical matters on which uncertainties must still, to a substantial degree, prevail. Some doctors, faced with this Clause, would be only too ready to say in good faith, "There is a risk, and we are prepared to say that we feel this to be a serious risk. We must, therefore, prevent the birth of the child by artificially terminating the pregnancy".

One is opening a door, the opening of which could have very dangerous consequences. I will require to be satisfied more than I have been so far that medical knowledge has reached such a degree of sophistication that the Clause could be operated in the terms which I believe that the sponsors of the Bill would like to think that it operated without the severe risk of a number of perfectly sound and healthy children being destroyed in the early stages of pregnancy. That is the main point, and it was argued, if I may say so, extremely well by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). I must tell the hon. Member for Cheadle and his hon. Friend, that I am quite unsatisfied by any answer we have had so far.

8.30 a.m.

Mr. K. Robinson

I have sought the best advice I can about these Amendments, and in a very few sentences I should like to communicate that advice to the House.

I think that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Amendment No. 26 is consequential on Amendment No. 21, since it refers to the word "probability" which is not in the Bill at the moment. Therefore, if No. 21 is rejected, No. 26 will fall. I am informed that if we were to accept the first three Amendments it is extremely doubtful whether, in the present state of medical knowledge, a doctor could ever properly carry out an abortion under paragraph (b). It therefore follows that if the House wishes paragraph (b) to be effective, as I do in my personal capacity, the only advice I can give is that it should reject all three Amendments.

Mr. Madden

Before the Minister sits down, may I point out that he did not tell us about the word "probability"? He must have some advice on that. In my profession, I have to deal with statistics. We talk of probabilities as 0.1, meaning that there is one chance in ten. Is it really thought that "probability" means over 50 per cent.? If hon. Members think that, they are living in a world of laymen and I do not think the courts would uphold them.

Mr. Robinson

I am speaking of the world of lawyers, and I am told that the legal interpretation is that it is over 50 per cent.

Mrs. Knight

The House listened to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) with exceptional care for two reasons. The first is that he himself claimed at the outset to be the, as it were, official spokesman of this Clause in the absence of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) —

Mr. David Steel

I must say that I take offence at that comment when I left the Chamber for five minutes after I have been sitting here continuously—without leaving even for a few seconds—from ten o'clock last night until eight o'clock this morning.

Mrs. Knight

It was right that complaint should have been made by an hon. Member, who made it simply because there was no one here to reply to his remarks.

I make a valid point by saying that one of our reasons for listening with such care to the hon. Member for Cheadle was that he himself said at the outset that this was his position in this debate. The other reason is that we all recognise that he has medical knowledge which most of us do not have, and we are always extremely anxious to have a good and solid knowledge of facts that he knows better than we do.

But, bearing in mind that point, it was a matter of great disappointment to me that the hon. Gentleman seemed to mislead the House, I am sure quite unintentionally, on four clearly separate counts. The first one was when he appeared to say that no one need worry, because the doctors will do all they can to make sure that a woman continues with her pregnancy. In fact, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) made the point—and it is very important that other hon. Members recognise it to be so—that, because the Clause is worded as it is, it cannot be said to be valid that doctors will do their utmost to see that a woman continues with her pregnancy. That is not a point which the hon. Member for Cheadle can make with validity.

Second, he described very movingly the case of a child born to a woman who contracted German measles at an important stage in her pregnancy, and he spoke about the birth of a very badly handicapped child. What he did not say was that this sort of case is extremely rare. He seemed to indicate that it was not at all unusual for it to happen if a woman had German measles at this stage. It may surprise him to know that one doctor who has been in practice for 40 years has written to me saying that he has never had a single case in all his experience of a woman who produced a handicapped child after contracting German measles in early pregnancy.

It is important for the House to realise that we must not be led astray by hard cases. It is well known that hard cases make bad law. We have asked repeatedly for some sort of firm knowledge about how certain it is that a mother will produce a handicapped child after contracting German measles. So far, we have asked in vain, because the suggestion about setting up a Royal Commission has not been accepted up till now.

The third way in which the hon. Gentleman misled the House was when he said that occasionally—and that was his word—a healthy child will be aborted. But is it not true that, if the Clause is accepted as it stands at the moment, far more healthy children will be aborted than unhealthy ones? It is not true to say that occasionally one might be aborted who would be all right, when quite the reverse is the case.

Mr. Gurden

To be fair to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), I did not hear him deny that three to five normal healthy children would be destroyed.

Mrs. Knight

He took up that point later when he was challenged to deny that those figures were true. I am dealing with the point in his speech where he used words to the effect that occasionally a health child would be aborted if this Clause were accepted. It is not good enough to attempt to suggest that it will happen only occasionally. It will happen in the vast majority of cases.

The fourth way in which he misled the House was over the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern). Again, one had great sympathy for the woman who carried her child with an increasing burden of worry, doubt and anguish. But, as has been clearly pointed out, that woman could be aborted under another Clause of the Bill, and the hon. Member for Cheadle must not advance that argument in favour of the eugenic Clause.

Dr. Winstanley

The reason why I stressed this point was to answer a point which the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) made. He asked, why not wait until the child was born at term? I did not intend to give the impression that the only reason for the abortion of a malformed foetus is the mother's nervous condition. That is not so at all.

Mrs. Knight

What the hon. Member has said is very interesting, but it does not invalidate the point I am making in any way. He must recognise that. It is, of course, a very terrible thing to have a handicapped child. I dare say that all of us at some time have known mothers who have cared for handicapped children. That we oppose this Clause does not mean that we have no sympathy for a woman with a handicapped child; quite the reverse. When I knew far less about this subject than I know now, I supported the idea that if a woman would have a handicapped child she should be allowed to be aborted. I had vividly in mind the problem of thalidomide babies, and I would have supported that idea until I knew more about it.

I will read from what was said by the gynaecologist from whom I have already quoted. What he said is very relevant to this question. Speaking of the eugenic provision, he said: This has not been comprehensively opposed by the gynaecologists as a group though some have, along with the leading clergy, singled it out as the most offensive section of the Bill. The main objection to it is that occultly it introduces the principle of euthanasia albeit 'antenatal euthanasia'. If euthanasia is to be introduced, many feel it is desirable to face the issue squarely rather than allow it to creep in by the back door. It is no good saying to the country that if it is thought that a woman may have a handicapped child it can be got rid of on the off-chance. It would be far more honest and humane to wait and see if the child is handicapped and then, if it is thought that it ought not to live, to get rid of it. How is it right to get rid of a child one cannot see and who has not been born, yet wrong to get rid of a child one can see, when the healthy child can be protected? How is it that many hon. Members do not seem to be concerned about the number of healthy children who would be aborted under the provisions of this Clause? This concerns me very much indeed. I think it right that other hon. Members should also concern themselves about it.

The gynaecologist also said: Many feel that in this connection the proper thing is to make provision that abortion may be done if there is danger to the mother's mental health from worry about a pregnancy with a high risk of foetal malformation". That is entirely different from the Clause as it stands. Even if we could be absolutely certain that the child would be handicapped, is it right to say that we do not want handicapped children and cannot care for them? Surely it is most important to say in a country which has any pretensions to Christianity, "We will care for our weak and malformed and those who are not so fortunate as we", not get rid of them. Almost all the handicapped children I have seen recognise the good things of life and enjoy living. Although they cannot live as we do, they derive from life many great joys. Who has not known blind people who have enormous joy and pleasure from music, or handicapped people who even have paraplegic sports?

8.45 a.m.

Some of the handicaps suffered by those which the Clause seeks to get rid of are very minor. Some are only a matter of webbed feet or webbed fingers. These would be classed as handicaps. Surely nothing could be more simple than to get over such a minor handicap.

Sir D. Glover

Is it really the case that someone with webbed feet is handicapped? That would mean that I should have been aborted.

Mrs. Knight

I am sure that all hon. Members, with few exceptions, are delighted that my hon. Friend's slight disability was satisfactorily arranged so as to enable him to be with us.

Mr. Frederic Harris

If that tragedy had occurred, it would have shortened tonight's debates.

Mrs. Knight

If I touched upon that, I might be ruled out of order.

When we talk about handicapped children in a blanket way, we cover some very minor handicaps. All those suffering from major handicaps—blindness, deafness, spasticity—have a right to live. There have been great advances in the care and treatment of these children. I spent a long time as chairman of a school for educationally subnormal children. They would certainly be classified as handicapped. Yet they had great joy in living. It would have been very immoral to have denied them the right to live just because they are not as we are.

I want to mention parents. Many who support this proposal know people who have borne the burden of a handicapped child throughout all its life. Some handicapped children live to middle age and beyond. Because people have seen the weight of this burden on parents, they think that the Clause is a very humane one and that they should support it. Surely we should not get rid of the child. We should say, "Let us have more homes and better facilities and give the parents a rest in caring for them or every scrap of help we can, thus sharing the burden". Society is more and more recognising its responsibilities and bearing them.

Life is precious to me, as it is to all hon. Members. I beg hon. Members to think again before they deny life to those who have already been given a handicap, either physical or mental. To deny them life as well would be harsh. This part of the Bill seeks to devalue life in a way which, if we sanctioned it, we could well be extremely sorry for afterwards.

Mr. English

The object of Amendments Nos. 21 and 26 is to introduce into the Bill a greater precision of definition than exists in it now. Paragraph (b), to which these Amendments and others relate, says, for some reason, "substantial risk". I do not quite know why the prefix "substantial" is in paragraph (b) but not in paragraph (a), where it is merely an unqualified risk. Presumably a substantial risk means a higher degree of statistical probability than merely an unqualified risk. Presumably, therefore, whatever the meaning of these phrases, whatever the meaning as interpreted by each doctor—because that is what it boils down to—if he can interpret "risk" to mean a 10 per cent. statistical probability, then "substantial risk" must be something higher, say 20 per cent.

I do not know why it was not feasible for the promoters of the Bill to put in a specific percentage, because current medical practice often says that certain events have a statistical probability of occurring. This is quite common. I do not know why it was not possible to put a specific figure in the Bill. It may be that the intention was to make people believe that what was meant here was a probability of 50 per cent., but it seems to me that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has totally demolished this belief, if any such belief ever existed.

There is in the Bill a complete vagueness, and presumably in the end the courts will have to interpret what is a substantial risk. Meanwhile each individual doctor will have to determine it for himself, and run the risk of being wrong. It would have been simple to redraft the Bill to replace "substantial risk" by some other words, possibly other than those in the Amendments. The object of Amendments Nos. 20 and 23 is to import a 100 per cent. probability. I agree with the promoters of the Bill that this is going too far. There are few things in life of which we can be certain, and certainly nothing in biology, human or otherwise.

My suggestion in Amendment No. 21 is to import a 50 per cent. probability, but the Minister of Health has said that a 50 per cent. probability is beyond the reach of medical science at this time. If this is so, would it not have been possible for the promoters of the Bill—and I hope they may be able to do this in another place—to put in a specific figure which is within the reach of medical science?

Mrs. Lena Jeger

Has not my hon. Friend the understanding to realise that whatever percentage is put into a Bill of this kind, to the one mother in 1,000 who is the mother of a severely handicapped child, she is 100 per cent. the mother of a severely handicapped child, and to talk in these percentage terms is inhumane, in a way which I am sure my hon. Friend does not intend.

Mr. English

With respect to the hon. Lady, I would entirely agree with every word she said if the Bill was perfectly open and honest and said that paragraph (b) was merely an excuse. What ought to be the case on that basis—and I understand the emotional force behind this—is simply to make abortion on any ground legal at the request of the mother. Perhaps this is what ought to be the case. It is an arguable viewpoint. I accept that the hon. Lady has a logical coherent viewpoint.

What I am criticising is that this paragraph does not represent that viewpoint. It imports some degree of statistical probability, but it does not say what it imports, except that it is more than in paragraph (a), and it seems to me it leaves the whole issue to the individual doctor to determine at his peril. This is what is wrong with the whole of the paragraph. The hon. Lady's suggestion would be logically coherent, and I accept that it would be.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

As the parent of a mentally handicapped child, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and not with the hon. Lady.

Mr. English

It is not for me to comment on that.

Although Amendment No. 26 is linked by the word "probability" with the other Amendments, it imports into the Bill a degree of definition, or at any rate that is its intention, because the Bill, whether it says "substantial risk", or "certainty", or "probability", in every case this is related to whether the child would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

Here again, there is no attempt to define what is meant by seriously handicapped. As we have seen in the debate, it is possible for any two people to have totally different views on what that term means. There is no guidance in the Bill to the medical profession, and no guidance to the courts, which may have to interpret and adjudge the actions of doctors.

Mr. Braine

With respect, it is not correct that there has been no guidance from the medical profession. There are two basic documents on the subject, which have been available to the Government and to hon. and right hon. Members. There is a report by the B.M.A. Special Committee and the Council of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which lays down exactly what is meant by the term "seriously handicapped." I could go on to explain it, if I had time, but the "butcher" is at work.

Mr. English

With respect, although there are suggestions that our practice should be altered, the only things the courts in England will interpret at present are the meaures which we in Parliament pass. They will not take the views of a particular Royal College. Perhaps they should. There are suggestions that they should take into account documents of that kind. They would in a Roman law system, but they do not in England. This is an essential point. All the courts have for their guidance are, in the strictest sense, the words "seriously handicapped."

In the end, the individual doctor or the two doctors determining the issue—not the medical profession as a whole—must define what they believe "seriously handicapped" means. They must do that having in their minds a matter which the medical profession often hates, that is, what a court may decide it means, which may not be what the medical profession thinks it means. We can all think of occasions when the courts have given a statute a meaning in medical terms to which the medical profession has strongly objected.

The object of Amendment No. 26 was to put into the Bill some form of definition. It may or may not be the right one. I would not suggest that it is necessarily the only definition or the perfect definition—far from it—but there ought to be in the Bill words defining what Parliament means by "seriously handicapped." My suggestion in the Amendment is, that in that context, what is meant is that the child would be so mentally subnormal as to be incapable of being educated by a local education authority. That is the case of mental abnormality, and I proposed that form of words because they import a fairly well understood set of criteria. There are such children. Every local education authority and local health authority has to deal with them, and there are fairly well understood criteria for identifying such a child.

In the case of physical abnormality, my suggestion is that the child would be incapable of existence otherwise than in a hospital or similar institution". I admit that the wording may not be perfect, but it seems to me that the object of setting a standard for what "seriously handicapped" means should be considered by the House. We ought not to leave it completely vague, open and in the air.

What is a serious physical handicap? I knew the blind mayor of the borough on the council of which I used to sit, and he said that the only serious handicap for him would be to be deaf. He had been for half his life sighted and then he became blind. He said that, for the things he wanted to do, his blindness did not cause him undue difficulty—he was a remarkably able man—but what would have caused him to be completely cut off from human society was deafness.

Does that mean that deafness is a serious handicap and blindness is not? It may be that the medical profession cannot determine whether a child will be born with the one defect or the other, but, if it could, would that mean that the one was a serious handicap and the other was not? I shall not go on to elaborate cases of that kind.

We ought, as a Parliament, to consider precisely what we mean by these words. If we decide that we cannot determine what we mean by them, then, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) will have a point. If that is what Parliament wants, and we are going to legalise any sort of abortion anywhere, we had better say so.

Mrs. Lena Jeger

My hon. Friend must not misrepresent me. I said nothing of the kind.

Mr. English

My hon. Friend did say "one in a thousand", and one in a thousand is so low a statistical probability as to mean virtually every possibility. However, I am not trying to misrepresent my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Lena Jeger

I am sure that my hon. Friend is not.

9.0 a.m.

Mr. English

I am saying that the Bill leaves the actual meaning completely vague and open. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has demolished any argument that it means a degree of risk which is one for one, because he said that that can never be determined by the medical profession, and I take his word. He did not say what degree can be determined by the medical profession, but clearly it is much less than that.

The only clear Bill would be one saying, "We legalise abortion", or one leaving out the words "substantial risk" on the grounds that medical science simply cannot determine the risk. As it is now worded, the Bill undoubtedly needs tidying up.

Mr. Peter Mahon (Preston, South)

Hon. Members will agree that we have heard splendid and eloquent speeches on the Clause, which I consider to be the most important in the Bill. On the basis of the enlightening speeches that we have heard in the past hour or so, Parliament would be well-advised to accept what was said by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and agree to the Amendment.

I think that the words of the subparagraph deserve repetition. It says: that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) gave a very sincere, wise and honest exposition of the facts as they appeared to him. But the deficiencies were too evident. Without being unduly critical, I should say that despite his splendid attempt to allay hon. Members' fears his exposition was inadequate, if not apologetic.

We are no longer considering a threat to the life or health of the mother, but are considering taking into our own hands the decision whether a child shall live, whether, in the child's interests, we should terminate its life before it has began. That sounds a contradiction in terms, but I have used that phrase particularly because I think that it is accurate.

Can any right hon. or hon. Member define or assess what prospects there are for any living being? I believe with all the sincerity of which I am capable that many human beings have fulfilled their rôle in the pattern of existence without having been too richly endowed physically or mentally. Without being facetious, I should say that one has only to look around the House to see the strength of that argument.

In the alleged interests of the child, the Bill would hand over to someone the right to decide its entire existence. The only means of decision is an estimation of statistical risk. The Clause intends to approve abortion, the termination of life itself, on an estimation. The highest probability that one can arrive at as to whether a baby can be deformed is one in four. Therefore, if an abortion is allowed in this situation, three times out of every four a perfectly normal and unmained life will be destroyed.

The fearsome question—I put it to the House in all its gravity—is: are four potential lives to go into the incinerator lest one child should be deformed? Is the House prepared to accept that principle? If it is, the supporters of the Bill would do better to declare themselves in favour of putting to death the malformed newly born. Hon. Members quail at that, and all honour and glory to them, but that is the logical alternative to what they are seeking to do, and the consequences would be far less devastating.

If the law is to take to itself the power to assess the effect of the existence and life of the child—and the Clause confirms nothing else—I ask with the greatest possible concern: how far flung are the floodgates? Physically handicapped children, as we all know from our own experience—we must be perfectly honest about this; we have all had experience which has enabled us to gain very wonderful and lasting impressions—can develop the most delightful personalities and be a great joy and consolation to their parents. The constant preoccupation and research to save life and make possible more healthy children is one of the glories of the medical profession.

The Bill presents the easy way out, and so much more that is possible will never be attempted. It is a known fact that very often the demands made upon parents by children who need extra care and help can lead to a development in maturity and responsibility in parents who would otherwise remain mediocre. This fact was stressed—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I think that we all agree with what he is saying, but he must come to the Amendment, which is a question of substituting one word for another.

Mr. Mahon

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking to Amendment 20. I have stated expressly that I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Chelmsford. I agree profoundly that the change should be made in the Clause. I am trying in the best way I can, the most intelligent, honest and sincere way I can, to give reasons why this should be done.

Your intervention, Mr. Speaker, came at the wrong moment for me. I want to refer to the fact that the position of these deformed and mentally retarded children was mentioned in Committee. Surely I must be in order. I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings—I have taken a very keen interest in the Bill since its inception—and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that full reference was made to this aspect in a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) during the Committee stage.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Mr. Speaker is very patient with the hon. Member. We are discussing an Amendment, and he must come back now to the Amendment. I have already allowed him to range widely.

Mr. Mahon

Well, if one is to express the need for an Amendment one has to give reasons why he is expressing the need for the Amendment. That is precisely what I am attempting to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

The whole world mourned for the children of Aberfan who met death so suddenly in their classrooms. Above all else in that grief-stricken mining village what is being missed today are the smiles, the tears, the play and the laughter of those little ones. Mr. Speaker, you have had tremendous experience in dealing with little ones yourself throughout a long period of your own lifetime, and you know that what hon. Members have been saying so eloquently for the last hour or so is all too true. Nature has its own pruning knife. Most certainly, day by day, in the experience of each and every one of us, we learn of the frightful catastrophes and accidents involving a sad toll of human life.

In the light of that knowledge, this paragraph in the Bill points to the sin of despair. We are all of us rational beings, with normal human hearts; we have our joys and we have our sorrows. Posterity will not only mourn but recoil in horror at the thought of countless thousands of unborn children being suddenly deprived of life even after months in their mothers' wombs.

I believe that the direct killing of the unborn child is an act deeply repugnant to humanity and diametrically opposed to the whole concept of medicine and law. It is a slander on our people to say that they are asking for this sort of legislation. They never have.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member must come to the Amendment. We are not discussing the abortion Bill.

Mr. Mahon

I trust that the House of Commons at a quarter past nine this morning after 11 hours' discussion of this Bill will agree to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Chelmsford. I trust, also, that neither this part nor other parts of the Bill will appear on the Statute Book because I believe that this would be an act which would be contrary to every decent principle. Above all else, if there is to be legislation with regard to the unborn child—and this is what the Amendment deals with precisely: legislation with regard to the unborn child, the unborn, the mentally defective and the malformed child—let us ensure that it starts off from the initial premise of the child's right to life. Whatever the plight of the mother we shall neglect at our peril the rights of the tiny, unpersonalised being within the womb.

It is proposed to allow abortion when there is "substantial risk" that the child would be born suffering from physical or mental abnormality which would prove to be a serious handicap to it during its existence. But how is one to know that the child will be born like that? Certainly not by an examination of the foetus. Can anyone diagnose that a child will be born blind or deaf? It can only be a guess in particular cases. The moral way of solving these great difficulties is not by killing but by bettering social conditions. Rooted objections to this Bill by so many hon. Members—

9.15 a.m.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot continue to flout the Chair. This part of his speech would be all right on Third Reading, but not on this Amendment.

Mr. Mahon

You have been very kind to me, Mr. Speaker, and I am indebted to you. I will conclude now by agreeing with the view that these Amendments should be accepted.

Mr. Maddan

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to draw your attention to the fact that the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) and the Patronage Secretary have been in conversation, which makes me apprehend that the Closure is about to be moved, whereas your predecessor in the Chair assured my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) the right of reply, since he had allowed further Amendments to be debated with those originally selected.

Mr. Speaker

The Closure has not yet been moved. I had something of the same thought in my mind as the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan). If my predecessor in the Chair gave that assurance, I obviously must honour it. Mr. St. John-Stevas.

Mr. St. John-Stevas rose—

Mr. Braine

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to delay the House, but I would point out that no contrary view has been expressed to the many views put during this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford will be replying to views that meet with his entire approval.

Mr. Speaker

I have been asked to give the hon. Member for Chelmsford an opportunity to reply in response to an undertaking given by my predecessor in the Chair. It is for the hon. Member to decline it if he wishes to.

Mr. Percival

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we to infer that you are planning in advance that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) will be the last before the Closure is moved? I and other hon. Members have been bobbing up and down like yo-yo's throughout the night, only to be defeated when at last we might have had the opportunity to say something on a matter of great public interest by the Closure being moved—a Motion we have been able to foresee from the movements going on in the House.

Are we to infer from what you have said that you are merely honouring the undertaking given by your predecessor in the Chair to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford to reply and indicating in advance that you will accept the Closure?

Mr. Speaker

I am aware of all hon. Members who, to quote the hon. and learned Gentleman, have been bobbing up and down like yo-yo's during the night. I happen to have been in the Chair for quite a time. All I am doing at the moment is giving the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) the right to reply which was promised to him. What happens beyond that we must wait and see.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been here all night but I have not stood up to speak because I wanted to reserve my opportunity to speak on this Amendment. With great respect, it seems to me that the Closure has been moved with regularity.

Mr. Speaker

The question of the Closure is a matter for the judgment of the Chair. It cannot be challenged in this way as a point of order. If the hon Lady wishes to challenge it she has her method by putting a Motion on the Order Paper.

Sir D. Glover

On a point of order. The reason that your Deputy gave my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford the promise that he would be allowed to reply to the debate was that he extended the width of the debate by making the debate on Amendments Nos. 20, 23, 21 and 26 one debate, whereas up to that moment it had been expected that we should have two separate debates. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will take that into account when considering your Ruling.

Mr. Speaker

The Chair takes everything into account when acting as the Chair.

Mr. Christopher Price

Further to that point of order. I and several other hon. Members were in the house when your predecessor in the Chair pronounced on the right of reply of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) to this debate on these four Amendments. If I remember rightly, that pronouncement was made in extremely non-committal terms. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are not going into an inquest on what my predecessor in the Chair undertook. If he gave an undertaking it is being honoured.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

On a point of order. Without wishing to question anything that you have said, Mr. Speaker, may I ask your guidance? You announced your intention to call my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), to whom you have accorded a right of reply. We are deeply appreciative of this, but does the calling of an hon. Member with a right of reply denote that the debate will be at an end after his speech?

Mr. Speaker

The point has already been put to me and I have answered it. [Interruption.] Order. We have had a long evening, with many useful debates, but I hope that we shall not spend time on frivolous points of order.

Mr. Temple

Mr. Speaker, I was in the House when you originally ruled that Amendment Nos. 20 and 23 would be taken together and that there would be a separate debate. I was further in the House when your deputy was in the Chair and I was the first to raise a point of order with him regarding the coupling of Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 together which incorporated the debate on Amendment No. 26. Your deputy in the Chair said that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) would have a right of reply. To that, I did raise a point of order. I said that I did not agree that it would be right for him to have a right of reply; he should have a right of speaking to Amendment No. 26 to which he had his name. When the House is on the Report stage of a Bill a Member has the right of speaking a second time only if he is the Member in charge of an Amendment.

I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford has a right of speaking to Amendment 26 as up till now he has been precluded from speaking to it. It is, in fact, coupled with Amendment No. 21, and the hon. Member for Cheadle were speaking purely to Amendments Nos. 20 and 23 which were at that time coupled together. In other words, the two principal speeches in favour of these Amendments were not directed to Amendment No. 26.

I suggest, therefore, that my hon. Friend has the right of making two further speeches and that the words "right of reply" have nothing to do with that.

Mr. Speaker

The point of order which the hon. and learned Gentleman has submitted is entirely invalid. The House accepted the grouping of two Amendments after it had refused to accept the grouping of them when I was in the Chair. My predcessor has undertaken to give the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) an opportunity to reply, which is not a right that the hon. Gentleman has automatically to each of the grouped Amendments.

The rule of the House, as all hon. Members know, is: Where a bill has been committed to a standing committee, or has been so committed in respect of any provision, at the report stage of the bill or provision, the rule against speaking more than once does not apply to the Member in charge of the bill, or to the mover of any Amendment or New Clause in respect of that Amendment or Clause. The hon. Gentleman may reply to the combined Amendments which we have been discussing but he has no right of reply to the two of them. Mr. St. John-Stevas.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I am deeply sensible of your kindness, Mr. Speaker, and your punctiliousness in honouring the pledge given by your predecessor. If it will facilitate matters I will be happy to defer my right of reply until other Members have spoken.

Mr. Speaker

Order. When an hon. Member replies to a debate on an Amendment, the fact that he has replied does not end it. It may be ended, but that is not automatic.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is not my intention or my desire to delay the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No?"] I would not mind delaying the Government, but I do not wish to delay the House. I preface my remarks by welcoming the Leader of the House and thanking him for the belated arrangements which he has made for us.

I wish to reply briefly to the debate. All the Amendments which have been considered in this group have been concerned with the degree of risk which can be held to justify abortion, if once it is accepted that there are such eugenic circumstances that an abortion can be justified. I have indicated that there are some circumstances in which certainly I consider an abortion is justified on the grounds of necessity. I have equally made it clear that I would not include in those grounds eugenic circumstances alone. My general attitude to this question is that a deformity should be cared for rather than blotted out. But if we are going to have a Clause such as this in the Bill, then it is essential that that Clause should be as tightly drawn as possible.

On Amendments Nos. 20 and 23 we have had a fairly full discussion in which I have made my own views plain, and I do not wish to burden the House with a repetition of those views. All I would say is that, although I am extremely grateful for the very comprehensive and learned reply delivered by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), I do not think he answered my argument. The only point in his dissertation which I found impressive was the point that a mother who has born a deformed child suffers such anxiety that she at all costs wishes to avoid another pregnancy, while a mother who has had an abortion on the ground of deformity wishes as soon afterwards as possible to have another pregnancy. If what the hon. Member for Cheadle says is true, that is an argument against the Bill.

9.30 a.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin (Dulwich)

In support of his Amendment, the hon. Member has made the point that it is virtually impossible to say for sure whether a child will be born malformed. I understood that to be the principal argument. If the hon. Member agrees with that, can he explain the purpose of using the word "certainty" in the Clause?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Yes, I can. I had not intended to revert to that point, because I thought that I had adequately dealt with it. My point in including "certainty" is precisely that it is extremely difficult to predict whether a child will be born deformed. Therefore, the inclusion of "certainty" in the Bill at this stage, during the period of unpredictability of possible deformity, would have the effect of excluding abortions on the ground of deformity and, therefore, would exclude the danger of healthy children being disposed of to save an unhealthy or a potentially unhealthy child.

The medical situation might change, however. Here, I am entirely in the hands of the hon. Member for Cheadle, who indicated that research was advancing at a great pace and that it should soon become easily predictable whether a child was liable to be deformed. In that situation, by having "certainty" in the Clause, it would be possible for medical science to operate effectively under the Bill without incurring the risk of destroying healthy children. I hope that I have answered the point.

Having been distracted, I return to Amendments Nos. 21 and 26. The latter would substitute "probability" for "substantial risk" in paragraph (b) instead of substituting "certainty", as my Amendment would do. I think that "probability" is better than "substantial risk" because "risk" is vague and "substantial" has nothing very concrete to it. Therefore, "probability" is a better word because a definable meaning can be attached to it. I take it to mean "more likely than not." [Interruption.] That would be an improvement—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is difficult for an hon. Member to speak against a background of conversation.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.

It is possible to interpret the phrase "more likely than not" as meaning that an abortion could be carried out only if the chances of the child being born seriously handicapped were more than 50 per cent. That would be a reasonable interpretation of "probability". That would tighten the Clause. Therefore, while it is not as desirable as "certainty", it would be more desirable than the present wording.

I cannot add to the eloquence with which the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) put forward his argument for Amendment 26. Again, however, the basic argument for the hon. Member's Amendment is that it would give a definable test something which is verifiable and concrete, that the degree of handicap should be that the child is so mentally abnormal as to spend all its life in a hospital. This should be adopted, suitably amended, even if Amendment No. 21 is not accepted—

Division No. 415.]	AYES	[9.38 a.m.
Albu, Austen	Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Dunn, James A.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Allen, Schoefield	Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Archer, Peter	Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Armstrong, Ernest	Cant, R. B.	Ellis, John
Astor, John	Carlisle, Mark	Emery, Peter
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Carter-Jones, Lewie	Ensor, David
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Coe, Denie	Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Bagier, Cordon A. T.	Cooke, Robert	Faulds, Andrew
Barnes, Michael	Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Beaney, Alan	Crawshaw, Richard	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Bessell, Peter	Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Bidwell, Sydney	Darling, Rt. Hn. George	Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Body, Richard	Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Booth, Albert	Delargy, Hugh	Forrester, John
Bossom, Sir Clive	Dell, Edmund	Foster, Sir John.
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Diamond, Rt. Hn. John	Fowler, Gerry
Boyden, James	Dickens, James	Fraser, John (Norwood)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Dlgby, Simon Wingfield	Freeson, Reginald
Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Dobson, Ray	Galpern, Sir Myer

Sir Stephen McAdden (Southend, East)

If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) were accepted, would that not permit the advancement of medical science to narrow the area within which abortions can take place, so as to keep pace with the changes in medical science which make these difficulties curable?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I am glad that my earlier arguments apply also to the hon. Member's argument.

Is it in the unborn child's interests to be killed because of a statistical risk of deformity? This is a dramatic decision, arousing a dramatic debate. The doctor speaks, the mother speaks, and others can raise their voices. The only one who cannot speak is the one most intimately concerned—the unborn child. It is a tradition of English common law and statute law to intervene precisely because it cannot speak for itself, and it is important to discharge this rule in any new Statute. It is therefore important that the Clause should be as strictly defined as possible; that is the purpose of the Amendments.

Several hon. Members rose—

Hon. Members

Up, Charlie!

Mr. C. Pannell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 64.

Gardner, Tony	Lestor, Miss Joan	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Garrett, W. E.	Lipton. Marcus	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Loughlin, Charles	Robinson, Rt. Hn, Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Goodhart, Philip	Luard, Evan	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Lubbock, Eric	Roebuck, Roy
Gourlay, Harry	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony	MoBride, Neil	Ryan John
Gretham Cooke, R.	McCann, John	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Grey, Charles (Durham)	MacColl, James	Shore, Peter (stepney)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	MacDermot, Niall	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'ctle-u-Tyne)
Hamling, William	McGuire, Michael	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Harper, Joseph	McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Mackie, John	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Hart, Mrs. Judith	McNamara, J. Kevin	Small, William
Haseldine, Norman	Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)	Smith, John
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Snow, Julian
Higgins, Terence L.	Mellish, Robert	Spriggs, Leslie
Hilton, W. S.	Millan, Bruce	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Hobden Dennis (Brighton, K'town)	Molloy, William	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Hooley, Frank	Moonman, Eric	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Horner, John	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Swingler, Stephen
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Moyle, Roland	Taverne, Dick
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)	Murray, Albert	Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Neave, Airey	Tuck, Raphael
Howie, W.	Newens, Stan	Urwin, T. W.
Hoy, James	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)	vickers, Dame Joan
Huckfield, L.	Norwood, Christopher	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	O'Malley, Brian	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Hunt, John	Oram, Albert E.	Wallace, George
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Orme, Stanley	White, Mrs. Eirene
Janner, Sir Barnett	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)	Whitlock, William
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	Wigg, Rt. Hn. George
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Park, Trevor	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Parker, John (Dagenham)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Pavitt, Laurence	Winnick, David
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Pentland, Norman	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)	Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)	Woof, Robert
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Yates, Victor
Judd, Frank	Price, William (Rugby)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth Central)	Quennell, Miss J. M.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Kerr Russell (Feltham)	Rees, Merlyn	Mr. Christopher Price and
Ledger Ron	Reynolds, G. W.	Sir George Sinclair.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)	Richard, Ivor

NOES
Aldritt, Walter	Hiley, Joseph	Oakes, Gordon
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Oswald, Thomas
Biffen, John	Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Biggs-Davison, John	Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Percival, Ian
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Hunter, Adam	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Braine, Bernard	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Crowder, F. P.	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Symonds, J. B.
Dempsey, James	Kitson, Timothy	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Doughty, Charles	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Taylor, Edward M.(Glasgow,Cathcart)
English, Michael	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Teeling, Sir William
Fletcher Cooke, Charles	Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)	Temple, John M.
Foley, Maurice	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Tinn, James
Fortescue, Tim	Macdonald, A. H.	Ward, Dame Irene
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Clover, Sir Douglas	Maddan, Martin	Worsley, Marcus
Grieve, Percy	Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)	Wright, Esmond
Gurden, Harold	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Monro, Hector	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	More, Jasper	Sir Knox Cunningham and
Harvie Anderson, Miss	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Mr. Grant-Ferris.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Murton, Oscar

Question put accordingly, That 'substantial risk' stand part of the Bill:—

Division No. 416.]	AYES	[9.47 a.m.
Albu, Austen	Astor, John	Beaney, Alan
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Bell, Ronald
Allen, Scholefield	Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Berry, Hn. Anthony
Archer, Peter	Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Bidwell, Sydney
Armstrong, Ernest	Barnett, Joel	Body, Richard

The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 73.

Booth, Albert	Haseldine, Norman	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Bossom, Sir Clive	Higgins, Terence L.	Park, Trevor
Bottomley Rt. Hn. Arthur	Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Boyden, James	Hootey, Frank	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Horner, John	Pavitt, Laurence
Brown,Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Doug as	Pentland, Norman
Brown, R. W. (Shorediteh & F'bury)	Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)	Perry, Ernest G. (Batters:a, S.)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Howie, W.	Price, William (Rugby)
Cant, R. B.	Huckfield, L.	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Carlisle, Mark	Hunt, John	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Reynolds, G. W.
Coe, Denis	Janner, Sir Barnett	Richard, Ivor
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&St.P c as. S.)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Crawshaw, Richard	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Darting, Rt. Hn. George	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John	Johnson, Carol (Lew sham, S.)	Roebuck, Roy
Dickens, James	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir EIWyn(W.Ham,S.)	Ryan, John
Dobson, Ray	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Judd, Frank	Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Dunwoody Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Cenlral)	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c't e-u-Tyne)
Edwards, Robert (Bis on)	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Ellis, John	Ledger, Ron	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Ensor, David	Lestor, Miss Joan	Silverman, Julins (Aston)
Evans, Gwynlor (C'marthen)	Lipton, Marcus	Smith, John
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	Loughlin, Charles	Spriggs, Leslie
Faulds, Andrew	Luard, Evan	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Lubbock, Eric	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	MacDermot, Nlall	Swingler, Stephen
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Taverne, Dick
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Mackie, John	Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Forrester, John	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Urwin, T. W.
Foster, Sir John	Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, [...].)	Vickers, Dame Joan
Fowler, Gurry	Maxwell-Hys op, R. J.	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Fraser, John (Norwood)	Millan, Bruce	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Freeson, Reginald	Molloy, William	Wallace, George
Gardner, Tony	Moonman, Eric	White, Mrs. Eirene
Garrett, W. E.	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Whitlock, William
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Moyle, Roland	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Goodhart, Philip	Murray, Albert	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Neave, Airey	Winnick, David
Gourlay, Harry	Newens, Stan	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Gresham Cooke, R.	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)	Worsley, Marcus
Grey, Charles (Durham)	Norwood, Christopher	Yates, Victor
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Oram, Albert E.
Hamling, William	Orme, Stanley	TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Hart, Mrs. Judith	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)	Mr. Christopher Price and
		Sir George Sinclair.

NOES
Alldritt, Walter	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Murton, Oscar
Biffen, John	Hiley, Joseph	Oakes, Gordon
Biggs-Davison, John	Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	O'Malley, Brian
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Oswald, Thomas
Cooke, Robert	Hunter, Adam	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Percival, Ian
Crowder, F. P.	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Delargy, Hugh	Kitson, Timothy	Smalt, William
Dempsey, James	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Symonds, J. B.
Doughty, Charles	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Dunn, James A.	Lever, L, M. (Ardwick)	Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Emery, Peter	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Teeling, Sir William
English, Michael	McBride, Neil	Temple, John M.
Foley, Maurice	MacColl, James	Tinn, James
Fortescue, Tim	Macdonald, A. H.	Ward, Dame Irene
Frassr,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)	McGuire, Michael	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Galpern, Sir Myer	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Gilmour, Sir John (File, E.)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Maddan, Martin	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Gurden, Harold	Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)	Wright, Esmond
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Mellish, Robert	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Harper, Joseph	Monro, Hector	Sir Knox Cunningham and
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	More, Jasper	Mr. Grant-Ferris.
arvie Anderson, Miss	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Mr. David Steel

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned. There are two good reasons for moving this Motion. The first is that we have sat through the night, and those of us who have are fairly tired and would wish Jo give this fresh consideration at another stage. Second, I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has some business which he wishes to transact at 11 o'clock, and who are we to stand in the way of the tax gatherers.

I do not think that it would be profitable, in discussing whether to defer further consideration of the Bill, to dwell on the happenings of the past night. The House must itself judge what happened last night in due course. There are serious difficulties in advancing social legislation under the Private Member's Bill system, but the House cannot complain of that, since it has always been the practice, and certainly it was a factor which weighed with me in my choice of subject. Nor can we complain about the Government giving time for this Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can raise that on this Motion.

Mr. Steel

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was going to end by saying that we cannot complain about the Government affording time for a Bill of this kind if we accept that it has to be done under the Private Member's Bill procedure and that a lengthy Report stage is required. May I, therefore, move that we defer further consideration?

Mr. Hogg

In supporting the Motion, may I say that, not only has the House nothing to regret about the night's proceedings, but that it has been an extremely well-conducted debate on both sides.

I want to say to the Government, now that both the Leader of the House and the Home Secretary are here, that I do not need to repeat what I said to the Leader of the House at Question Time 10 days' ago. This has not been a good plan, and he should take note of it. It would have been quite easy to give Government time in other circumstances, and the patience and good bearing of the House is not to be held as a reason for endorsing the decision of the right hon. Gentleman to subject us to this procedure and reduce the staff to a state of almost complete nervous exhaustion.

Mr. St. John-Stevas rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Question is—

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Are you calling upon me to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Not unless the hon. Gentleman insists. If I sense the feeling of the House, it seems to be that the House should reach an immediate decision—[Interruption.] Order. It is perfectly open to hon. Members to debate this Motion if they think it right, but I should have hoped, in view of the fact that the House has been sitting for 12 hours on this Bill and it is now proposed to adjourn, that most hon. Members would wish to reach a decision.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Mr. St. John-Stevas.

10.0 a.m.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

In reply—

Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may we know where we are at the moment? The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) caught your eye on a point of order. Are we now to assume that while addressing you on a point of order he moved a dilatory Motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Yes. The Motion before the House is, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned. Mr. St. John-Stevas.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I would not dream of insisting on any right against the Chair, but I should like to make a request to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my right to be heard is granted on this Motion. I assure you that I shall not keep the House long, but it might be thought, by some at least, that those of us who have sat here during the night and who wish to say a few words on this Motion to adjourn are not acting totally unreasonably in claiming that right.

I think there is a reasonable case for accepting the adjournment at this point. I think there was a very much more reasonable case for accepting it earlier when it was moved. We have had a very full debate on a number of extremely important Amendments. I think everyone would agree that the debate has been of an extremely high standard. Mention has been made of a filibuster, which of course is an abusive and emotional word, but before this debate is adjourned I think it would be fair to say that although, as Mr. Speaker earlier pointed out, one must not be unduly sensitive in this House—he said one must not be hypersensitive—one should be reasonably sensitive.

If the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) suggested one were in fact conducting a filibuster, I think one would be acting reasonably and not hypersensitively to react a little to that. There is another view as to the operation that has gone on through the night. I will put it very briefly. If the Government put on a controversial Bill at a most inconvenient hour to the vast majority of hon. Members, which is quite unprecedented for a Private Member's Bill, those opposed to the Bill on grounds of principle are fully entitled to organise opposition to that treatment of the Bill in a dignified and efficient way. That, I think, has been the aim of hon. Members opposed to this Bill from both sides of the House.

There was only one moment I think during the evening—and that turned out to be a misunderstanding—when there was a question about lingering in the Lobby. Certainly there was no plan to linger in the Lobby. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. C. Pannell

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Just before you resumed the Chair the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) was given the right to the Floor out of respect to a promise which had been made. If we are to be ruled by your predecessor in the Chair, I must tell you that when you were not present, Mr. Speaker ruled most emphatically that there had been dilatoriness. He also had to threaten to name two hon. Members. It is not for the hon. Member now to reflect on Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Grant-Ferris

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I was one of the Tellers concerned in that Division and addressed Mr. Speaker afterwards, I know that Mr. Speaker did not rule anything of the kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There was one hon. Member in that Lobby who had already voted. As there was no one to clear the Lobby, the Tellers did not know whether the Lobby was empty or not, with the result that it was thought there was dilatory action in the Lobby. There was no such thing, and Mr. Speaker never said that there was.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order, order.

Mr. Frederic Harris rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It is not obvious to me that it helps the House in coming to a decision as to whether further consideration should be adjourned to discuss what happened in the Lobbies at an earlier stage.

Mr. Frederic Harris

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We on this side distinctly heard the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) point across to my hon. Friend here and say the word "liar". Is this not an unparliamentary use of language?

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think I must call on the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to withdraw that.

Mr. Pannell

I did not say he was a liar. I said, "Do not lie", which is a distinctly different matter. Out of respect for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I of course withdraw that. But I must say—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—I must say this. It will be within the knowledge of the Chair and of the House that the Serjeant at Arms was sent into the Lobby. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, must take cognisance of what Mr. Speaker has done during the night, in exactly the same way as Mr. Speaker took notice of your promise to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) to have the right to speak in the debate, which right he is now abusing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn the observation which caused offence.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I have no desire to discuss Mr. Speaker's Ruling or what he did say or what he did not say. All I would like the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to accept is that, if there was any lingering in the Lobby, in so far as I had any responsibility for organising the opposition to the Bill that was totally unknown to me.

Finally, the debate should rightly be adjourned now, because I think that the night has shown that we are faced with a problem which is much wider now than this Bill and that which is to be considered on Monday—one of which Bills I oppose, the other of which I support. What the night's proceedings have shown—this is a point on which we should like to hear from the Leader of the House—is that we have reached the point where Private Members' Bills can be satisfactorily debated and considered only if extra time is given for them. I would like the Leader of the House to consider that point when he speaks on this Motion.

Sir S. McAdden

How I shall vote on the Motion will depend very largely on such information as can be given to the House by the sponsor of the Bill, who moved the Motion, because in moving it the hon. Gentleman made it quite clear that one of the considerations he had in mind was the business which the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants dealt with at eleven oclock.

I should like to know from the hon. Gentleman whether, by his courtesy in moving, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned", to the satisfaction of the Chancellor's desires, he has in return received a pledge that further Government time will be made available. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am asking the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. David Steel

No.

Sir S. McAdden

I am glad to have that assurance. Everybody will agree that it was a perfectly proper question for me to ask. Government time has been given for the consideration of the Bill so far. It is perfectly right that, before the House makes a decision as to whether to adjourn, we should ask for an assurance that there has not been some deal done on this matter. My opinion is that the House would have done well to have adjourned further consideration a long time ago. As it has been so long delayed, I do not propose to delay it any further. Having received the assurance for which I asked, I hope that it will be borne out in the light of experience.

Mr. Percival

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), in supporting the Motion, said how much he hoped that if it was accepted the Leader of the House would bear in mind, in deciding what further time to allot to the Bill, the fact that many hon. Members had put in a long and hard night, and it appeared that the Leader of the House was acknowledging the force of this.

Mr. Speaker, your predecessor in the Chair at the time also drew attention—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We have had a long sitting. There is no reason why we should have background conversation.

Mr. Percival

I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. Having waited for more than 12 hours to say something, I was not proposing to waste time by paying any attention to such behaviour, but I am grateful to you for making it easier for me to say what I have to.

As I was saying, your predecessor in the Chair drew attention to the fact that we had had 12 hours of debate. I just want to relate these two points one to the other while we have the benefit of the presence of the Leader of the House. I hope that he will be aware that although the House has had 12 hours of debate, there are many hon. Members who wished to express a point of view on a matter which, whatever one's opinion, is of great public interest, but did not have the opportunity to do so, such was the pressure of the desire to speak.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind, too, the amount of time which is necessary if we are to come to a decision, and what is more important, not only to come to a decision, but to come to the right one. Two things are necessary for this. First, we need a good deal of time so that we do not work under pressure and under the eagle eye of the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) all the time, and, secondly, that we do our work at a reasonable time of day, a time of day which the nation will recognise as reasonable, and thus entitle the opinion we then form to receive the respect of the nation.

Mr. Frederic Harris

As one of the hon. Members who have been in the House for the last 12 hours, compared with the Leader of the House who has been missing for 11 of them—he went to sleep in the Chamber at eleven o'clock—I would like to add my support to the Motion, and in so doing press the Leader of the House to say for how long we are to adjourn consideration of this Bill. When will the Bill come before the House again, and under what circumstances? I have refrained from speaking in the debate, as have many of my hon. Friends, though my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) was unlucky not to be called, but I think that we are entitled to know what plans the Leader of the House has for the Bill in the near future.

Sir Knox Cunningham

I have not left the Chamber or the Lobbies since the debate started 12 hours ago. I tried to speak during some of the debates, but I was prevented from doing so by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), who moved the Closure on every possible occasion during the night. My constituents feel strongly about this matter. This is why I was here, and this is why I voted on every Motion moved by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. C. Pannell

In so far as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned me, may I say that I am the Member for an English constituency with an interest in the Bill, while he is a Member for Northern Ireland, voting on our legislation.

Mr. Wilson

I do not come from Northern Ireland. I have been here for 12 hours, for the first eight trying to speak, but I was not fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. We have had a serious debate on very important matters. Serious points were put, and many hon. Members tried to speak. I hope that the impression will not get abroad that it was a filibuster. It certainly was not.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

I fully support the Motion. I imagine that it would now be most convenient to the House to hear the Leader of the House. We wish the right hon. Gentleman a very good morning. He has come to us with the sunshine. Perhaps he will now disclose his intentions.

10.15 a.m.

Sir D. Glover

The Leader of the House has had the House here for 12 hours, from ten o'clock last night, on a most controversial Bill. He ought now to tell us what his intentions for the progress of the Bill are.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman)

First, I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) for what he said. We shall think over it. As for our intentions about the Bill, we must await the next business statement.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Monday next.